Case Name: NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. v. VILLAGE OF OSSINING et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-12-30
Citations: 126 N.Y.S. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. v. VILLAGE OF OSSINING et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 126
Pages: 517–519

Head Matter:
NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. v. VILLAGE OF OSSINING et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1910.)
1. Dedication (§ 15 )—Highways—Acts Constituting “Dedication”—Intent.
The acts and declarations of an owner, to constitute a “dedication” of land for a street, must be deliberate, unequivocal, and decisive, manifesting a positive and unmistakable intent to permanently abandon land to the specific public use; and where he does so an estoppel in pais operates against him.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Dedication, Cent. Dig. § 13; Dec. Dig. § 15.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1908-1918; vol. 8, pp. 7629, 7630.]
2. Dedication (§ 20*)—Highways—Acts Constituting Dedication.
An owner who opens a private way for his own use, and who permits the public to travel over it for many years, as if a highway, does not thereby show an intent to dedicate the land for a highway.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dedication, Cent. Dig. § 26; Dec. Dig. § 20.*]
3. Dedication (§ 44*)—Highways—Evidence—Sufficiency.
Evidence held not to show an intent to dedicate land for a highway. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dedication, Cent. Dig. § 85; Dec. Dig. § 44.*]
Thomas. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.
Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against the Village of Ossining and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, THOMAS, and RICH, JJ.
Frank E. Young and Glenn M. Congdon (Joseph A. Greene, on the brief), for appellants.
John F. Brennan, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § numbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
JENKS, J.
It was mutually agreed on the argument that the sole question is whether the land in Main street was part of a public street. That question depends upon the fact whether there has been a dedication by the plaintiff, the owner thereof. As there is no proof of any written dedication, or of the filing of any map, the inquiry is whether the acts of the owner and the surrounding circumstances indicate an intention to set apart this land for highway purposes.
The acts and declarations of the owner must be "deliberate, unequivocal, and decisive, manifesting a positive and unmistakable intention to permanently abandon his property to the specific public use."- Holdane v. Village of Cold Spring, 21 N. Y. 474. If so, an estoppel in pais works against him. Id.; Morgan v. R. R. Co., 96 U. S. 716, 24 L. Ed. 743. If an owner opens a private way for his own use, his permission to the public to travel over it for many years, as if a highway, is not sufficient proof of an intention to dedicate. Speir v. Town of New Utrecht, 121 N. Y. 430, 24 N. E. 692. And thus ways of approach to a wharf or a dock, or a place of business, or to a railroad station, although the owner permit general use thereof for highway purposes, are not regarded as if dedicated perforce of such permission and a user under it. City of Buffalo v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 68 App. Div. 488, 74 N. Y. Supp. 343, affirmed 178 N. Y. 561, 70 N. E. 1097; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 10, 13 L. Ed. 25; Railroad v. Roseville, 76 Ohio St. 108, 81 N. E. 178; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 118 Ga. 486, 45 S. E. 256; City of Chicago v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 152 Ill. 561, 38 N. E. 768; Durgin v. City of Lowell, 3 Allen (Mass.) 398; Williams v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 39 Conn. 509.
In Irwin's Case, supra, the court, per Woodbury, J., say:
"While, then, anybody might be allowed to travel over this space from the warehouse east to the wharf and river, when convenient and not injuring the owner, it would not be because it had been intended to give to the public a right of way over these premises, but because he himself intended to travel over it, and while so doing, and so leaving it open, would not be captious in preventing others from traveling there."
It
; In Durgin v. City of Lowell, supra, the court, per Chapman, J., say:
"The way was necessary for the use of the company and their tenants and servants; and it was necessary for them to keep it constantly open and unobstructed, so that all persons might travel over it; and, furthermore, it would be very difficult to ascertain whether a person traveling on it was doing so as a mere traveler, and without any connection with the company or their tenants; and, if he were so using it, his use would be merely incidental. And as the travel of strangers would do no appreciable damage, it should be regarded, under these circumstances, as permissive, and not adverse to the rights of the company, and as furnishing no evidence that the company intended to dedicate the way to public use. It differs from the ordinary case, where the proprietor might without inconvenience to himself keep the way closed against the public if he chose to do so, and where his own use of it is only occasional, while that of the public is constant and frequent, and is such that it may be regarded as adverse to his private rights."
I think that the evidence is sufficient to justify the finding that the strip of land in Main street was used by the plaintiff in the working of its business, and for the convenience of its patrons. The testimony óf the witness Palmer seems clear upon that subject. He testifies that, before Secor Road was open, Railroad avenue was the_ only means of going to and from the station. The defendant's witness Wheeler testifies that people go down Main street, and cross over, and walk down to the station; that there was nothing else down there on the west* side of Railroad avenue. It terminates at the station.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur, except THOMAS, J., who reads for reversal.