Case Name: In re WATER FRONT OF CITY OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-11-08
Citations: 106 N.Y.S. 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re WATER FRONT OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 106
Pages: 503–506

Head Matter:
(121 App. Div. 702.)
In re WATER FRONT OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 8, 1907.)
Appeal—Law of the Case—Scope of Determination.
Where, on prior appeals to the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals from the decision of commissioners of estimate and assessment refusing to consider claimant’s right to certain wharf property sought to be taken by a city, the authority to maintain the wharf, etc., conferred on claimant’s predecessors in title by the common council of the city was necessarily considered by both courts, though not discussed in the opinion of either, the decisions on appeal constituted the law of the case on such subject, precluding any further contest thereon.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 4358-4368.]
Scott and Lambert, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term.-
Application by the mayor, etc., of the City of' New York for the acquisition of the right and title to certain wharf property, etc., between Forty-Second and Forty-Third streets, and between Twelfth and Thirteenth avenues, in such city. From an order confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment, the American Ice Company appeals. Reversed, and remanded to the commissioners.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and LAUGHRIN, HOUGHTON, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.
Albert Stickney, for appellant.
Theodore Connoly, for respondent.
James A. Deering, for Forty-Second St. & Grand St. R. Co.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, P. J.
In my judgment this matter should be sent back to the commissioners to make a substantial award to the American Ice Company, for it was finally determined in the case of Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-Second St. R. R. Co., 176 N. Y. 408, 68 N. E. 864, that the plaintiff therein,'which was the predecessor in interest of the American Ice Company, had property rights which could not be taken possession of or resumed by the city without proper compensation being made. It appears that the right of one Lindsay, subsequently acquired by the Knickerbocker Ice Company, to maintain a pier and to exercise the rights pertaining to such maintenance, was partly conferred by a deed executed and delivered in the year 1853, pursuant to asserted authority derived1 from the common council of the city of New York; and it is now urged that such authority was not conferred, for the reason that the resolution was not adopted by a municipal legislative body constituting a common council at the time such resolution is said to have been passed. I am of the opinion that that is not an open question in this court or in the Court of Appeals, either as 'between the American Ice Company and the Forty-Second Street Railroad Company, or as between those corporations and the city.
Mr. Justice SCOTT, ;in his opinion on the present appeal, is in error in the statement that "the question now discussed was not considered oi discussed" in the opinion in the case of the Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-Second St. R. R. Co. It was discussed and considered in this court and in the Court of Appeals, although specific mention is not made of it in the opinion-handed down in either court; but it was elaborately argued in this court on the points of counsel, namely, point 5 of counsel for the city, when the case was in this court, and in point 6 of counsel for the city and in subdivision C, point 3, of counsel for the Forty-Second Street Railroad Company, when the cause was in the Court of Appeals. Record of Court of Appeals Cases, vol. 87, Bar Association Library, New York. In the Court of Appeals, construction was given to the deed of 1852, and it is said in the opinion of the court, that, while various matters referred to were inconsistent with the idea that the grant of 1852 conveyed an absolute fee, yet—
"they speak with most persuasive force of the real purpose and effect of the grant, which was to convey to the grantee the right to maintain a pier, and to collect wharfage, etc., at the foot of Forty-Third street in the Hudson river, wherever that point should be located by lawful authority. It was the incorporeal hereditament attached to the fee, and not the fee itself, that was conveyed. The plaintiff, as the grantee's successor in title, has the right to follow the lawful extension of Forty-Third street for the purpose of maintaining a pier and collecting its revenues."
If I understand aright the decision of the Court of Appeals, the effect of the deed of 1852 was declared, and it cannot be that that court would have adjudged that the Knickerbocker Ice Company had property rights which could not be taken without compensation if the original grant under which those rights were acquired was invalid and conferred no title at all; for the point was plainly before that court, earnestly urged, and necessarily required consideration.
In view of the divergence of opinion concerning the question presented by this record, if either party desires, we will certify that question to the Court of Appeals for its consideration.
The order should be reversed, and the matter sent back to the commissioners.
LAUGHLIN and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.