Borough of Belmar v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 01 March 1909 |
| Citation | 77 N.J.L. 559,72 A. 77 |
| Parties | BOROUGH OF BELMAR v. BARNETT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by the Borough of Belmar against James C. Barnett. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Patterson & Rhome and James Buchanan, for plaintiff in error. Frank Durand and Robert H. McCarter, for defendant in error.
This is an action of ejectment, brought by the borough of Belmar to recover possession of land which it alleged had been dedicated to public use, and in its declaration demanded possession, with an averment of the date when its right to the possession accrued. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty, which by section 13, Gen. St. 1895, p. 1284, is an admission that the defendant was in possession, or claimed title thereto, at the time of the commencement of the action. At the close of the plaintiff's case a motion for nonsuit was refused, to which an exception was allowed and error assigned. The motion was rested upon the ground that, although there was evidence which would support a dedication of an easement, it was limited to that of an unobstructed view, and until it appeared that such view was interrupted no possessory right of action existed.
According to the case submitted by the plaintiff it appeared that the Ocean Beach Association, owning a large tract of land lying along, and adjacent to, the Atlantic Ocean, caused a map to be made of it, which was duly filed in the office of the clerk of the county of Monmouth, in which county the land is located. All of the land, excepting a tract or square adjoining the ocean, and some other small parcels alleged to have been dedicated to public use, but which are not within the present controversy, was divided into blocks and lots, and a number given to each lot. The block or square of which the locus in quo was a part was not divided into lots or marked in any way on the first map, but was shown on it as an open space lying between the ocean and a lake, having at that time an outlet to the ocean, which outlet, according to subsequent maps, was afterwards closed by the association when it improved Ocean avenue, which had been opened parallel with the ocean and between it and the body of the lake, by removing a bridge which crossed the outlet and at the same time filling in the outlet with earth. The map also shows that along each side of the lake there was protracted an avenue, with lots fronting on each; the location being such that, if the space between the lake and the ocean was not built upon, all or nearly all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by State Highway Com'r v. Cooper
...Fessler v. Town of Union, 67 N.J.Eq. 14, 56 A. 272 (Ch. 1904), affirmed 68 N.J.Eq. 657, 60 A. 1134 (E. & A.1905); Belmar v. Barnett, 77 N.J.L. 559, 72 A. 77 (E. & A.1909); Long Branch v. Toovey, 104 N.J.L. 335, 140 A. 415 (E. & A.1928); Highway Holding Co. v. Yara Engineering Corp., 22 N.J.......
-
Barr v. Borough of Belmar
...the ground that it had been dedicated to public use. The verdict was for the plaintiff and it was affirmed upon appeal. Belmar v. Barnett, 77 N. J. Law, 559, 72 A. 77. In March, 1924, the borough passed an ordinance authorizing the construction of a swimming pool in the square at the east e......
-
Hill v. Borough of Belmar
...to whom lots in the "square" had been conveyed. Judgment in each suit was entered in favor of the borough upon relicta. Belmar v. Barnett, 77 N. J. Law, 559, 72 A. 77, in the Court of Errors and Appeals, arose out of an action of ejectment respecting a parcel of land embraced within the pre......
- Ball v. Camden & T. Ry. Co.