Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co.

Decision Date11 March 1913
Citation207 N.Y. 500,101 N.E. 456
PartiesGEDDES COARSE SALT CO. v. NIAGARA, LOCKPORT & ONTARIO POWER CO.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by the Geddes Coarse Salt Company against the Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Company. From a judgment (147 App. Div . 917,131 N. Y. Supp. 1116), affirming a judgment entered on a directed verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed as modified.

Louis L. Babcock, of Buffalo, for appellant.

Jerome L. Cheney, of Syracuse, for respondent.

HISCOCK, J.

This action was brought as one of ejectment to compel the appellant to remove wires used for conducting high-power electric currents, and strung above the boundaries of a highway, as shown upon a map which will be referred to. The facts which define the controversy are as follows:

In 1902 the state issued to the respondent letters patent, whereby it granted and conveyed to it certain lands theretofore constituting part of the Onondaga Salt Springs reservation, and amongst which was one parcel, alone involved in this action, described as Subdivision No. 17 (of farm lots 45 and 46) containing 13.42 acres,’ as said subdivision was laid down on a map of the farm lots in question made by one Greene, deputy surveyor, in August, 1849, and during said month filed in the office of the Secretary of State. Said map showed said subdivision 17 as abutting at its southerly boundary on a road 4 rods wide, and which road, in turn, had for its southerly boundary the blue line of the enlarged Erie Canal, then in process of construction; the distance from this blue line to the base line of the canal as finally constructed and used being upwards of 30 feet. For some time before the grant in question said road apparently was not used by the public in the portion bounding subdivision 17, aforesaid, but at least some part of it seems to have been occupied by a storehouse belonging to the respondent. The letters patent and the map to which reference has been made gave the area of subdivision 17 and other parcels then being conveyed, and such statement of such area is satisfied without incorporating in the grant any portion of the highway. Under these circumstances the question has arisen whether the respondent acquired title to all or to part of said highway, as subdivision 17 abutted on the same, and this question, by consent, was disposed of by the trial court as a question of law; it holding that the respondent acquired title to the bed of the entire highway.

The general rule is that a conveyance by reference to a map which shows the premises being conveyed as abutting upon a highway, as between the grantor and grantee, conveys to the latter title to the fee of the highway to the center line thereof. This is the rule as against the state, as well as against a private grantor, and it applies even though at the time of the conveyance the highway, as shown upon the map, has not been accepted and used by the public as such, and although the grant by its terms, or by reference to a map, gives an area of the premises being conveyed which is satisfied without resort to the land included in the highway. Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 61;Matter of Ladue, 118 N. Y. 213, 23 N. E. 465;Trowbridge v. Ehrich, 191 N. Y. 361, 84 N. E. 297:Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co., 178 N. Y. 102, 111,70 N. E. 213;Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, 184 N. Y. 193, 204,77 N. E. 33.

I see no reason for attempting to build up an exception to this general rule upon the facts presented in this case, but think that the respondent's title extended to the center of the highway, opposite said subdivision 17, as shown upon the map.

The respondent, however, is not satisfied with this, but insists that under its grant it took title to the fee of the entire...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hirzel
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1916
    ... ... Ry. Co., ... 23 N.Y. 61; Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara, Lockport & ... io Power Co., 207 N.Y. 500, 101 N.E. 456; City ... of ... ...
  • Boothe v. McLean
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 1954
    ...R. Co. v. Ayres, 50 N.J.L. 660, 14 A. 901; McGee v. Swearengen, 194 Ark. 735, 109 S.W.2d 444, 448; Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., 207 N.Y. 500, 101 N.E. 456; Anderson-Prichard Oil Corp. v. Key Okla Oil Co., 149 Okl. 262, 299 P. 850; State v. Arnim, Tex.Civ.......
  • City of Albany v. State
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1971
    ...(Bissell v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 23 N.Y. 61; Matter of Ladue, 118 N.Y. 213, 23 N.E. 465; Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., 207 N.Y. 500, 503, 101 N.E. 456; Matter of City of New York (165th St.), 258 N.Y. 42, 50, 179 N.E. 253, 255). The rule is not, howeve......
  • Faulks v. Schrider
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 11, 1938
    ...evidence of the grantors' intention to reserve to themselves title to the beds of the abutting streets, Geddes Coarse Salt Co. v. Niagara L. & O. P. Co., 207 N.Y. 500, 101 N.E. 456; Bergan v. Co-op., etc., Co., supra; Wiedmer v. W. J. & S. R. Co., supra. With this question to one side, ther......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT