Greenleaf v. Brooklyn

• Decision Date: 30 April 1892
• Citation: 30 N.E. 762,132 N.Y. 408
• Parties: GREENLEAF v. BROOKLYN, FLATBUSH AND CONEY ISLAND R. R. CO.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

132 N.Y. 408

30 N.E. 762

GREENLEAF

v.BROOKLYN, FLATBUSH AND CONEY ISLAND R. R. CO.

Supreme Court, New York County, New York.

April, 1892.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, in the second judicial department, which affirmed a judgment entered on decision of a circuit court, upon a trial by the court without a jury.

This action, ejectment, was begun July 11, 1882, to recover in fee the land hereinafter described. The defendants by their answers deny that the plaintiffs have title, but they do not allege that they or either of them have title to the land in dispute.

William. C. DeWitt, for appellants.

Thomas E. Pearsall, for defendant in another action, similarly interested with appellants.

Morney Williams and Frederic A. Ward for plaintiffs, respondents.

FOLLETT, Ch. J.

So far as the case before us shows, the earliest reference to the land in dispute is contained in the judgment-roll in partition.

In March, 1847, Ann Stillwell, her husband joining, filed a bill in the late court of chancery against John and Jacobus Emmons, alleging that they were seized in fee as tenants in common of the land now in dispute, and of other lands.

Jacobus Emmons answered by his guardian ad litem and submitted his rights to the court.

John Emmons also answered and admitted the allegations of the bill. The mother of John and Jacobus Emmons had re-married, and she and her husband were also parties defendant, who answered that the mother was entitled to dower in part of the premises. A reference was ordered to report upon the rights and interests of the parties to the action in the subject matter thereof. December 23, 1847, an interlocutory judgment was entered in the action in partition, appointing commissioners to make actual partition of the lands. March 1, 1848, the commissioners made and filed their report partitioning the lands between the parties to the action. That which is in dispute in this action was set off to John Emmons, and is thus described: “All that certain piece or parcel of meadow-land situated, lying and being in the said town of Gravesend, and known and designated on the said map as and by the number 23 (twenty-three) on the said map, bounded and described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a certain stake standing on Duck Hill placed at the division line between meadows of the heirs of Abraham Emmons and the said parcel number 23 (twenty-three); running thence south five degrees, east twenty-four chains along said meadow-land of the heirs of Abraham Emmons to the Atlantic Ocean; running thence north seventy-nine degrees and thirty minutes, east one chain and seventeen links along the said Atlantic Ocean to parcel number 24 (twenty-four) allowed and set apart by us to Jacobus Emmons, as hereinafter mentioned; running thence north five degrees and forty-five minutes west along the division line between parcel XXIII (twenty-three) and 24 (twenty-four) twenty-four chains to Duck Hill and to a certain stake there standing and put and placed by us; running thence south seventy-nine degrees and thirty minutes, west one chain to the point or place of beginning containing two acres, two roods and fourteen perches.” The commissioners filed in the clerk's office a map of the lands partitioned, showing the part assigned to each, and known as No. 173. March 10, 1848, a final judgment was entered confirming the report of the commissioners, and in addition the parties conveyed to each other the lands set apart to each; Ann Stillwell and her husband and Jacobus Emmons, by his guardian, assumed to convey parcel No. 23 to John Emmons, by a deed dated April 6, 1848, and duly recorded in Kings County, April 8, 1848. John Emmons assumed to convey lot No. 23 to Charles H. Greenleaf, by a deed dated September 30, 1848, and duly recorded February 8, 1850. Charles H. Greenleaf assumed to convey an undivided half of this lot to James S. Butler, by a deed dated July 27, 1877, and recorded September 17, 1877. Afterwards Charles H. Greenleaf died, having devised his real estate to Elizabeth Greenleaf, one of the present plaintiffs. Upon the trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff recovered the possession of the premises, as tenants in common in fee simple, with $100 damages for the wrongful withholding, which was affirmed at general term.

The important question involved in this appeal is, whether the plaintiffs gave sufficient evidence of title to sustain a recovery in ejectment. Their evidence is solely documentary, and consists of the judgment roll in partition and the subsequent deeds already referred to. The defendants insist that the judgment was not competent evidence. It is unnecessary to consider the authorities discussing the conclusiveness of judgments, for they are so only as between the parties and...