Jarvis v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 10 January 1899
• Citation: 157 N.Y. 445,52 N.E. 657
• Parties: JARVIS v. LYNCH et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

157 N.Y. 445

52 N.E. 657

JARVIS

v.LYNCH et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 10, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, First department.

Action by Nathaniel Jarvis, Jr., against Sarah Lynch, executrix, and others. From an order of the general term overruling a motion for new trial on exceptions to an order dismissing the complaint, and a judgment entered thereon (13 N. Y. Supp. 703), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Samuel Untermyer and Anderson Price, for appellant.

Charles E. Miller and Henry B. Anderson, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of a block of land in the city of New York, described in the complaint as bounded by 155th and [157 N.Y. 447]156th streets, Eighth avenue, and a street to the eastward, called Exterior street. The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed at the circuit, and upon a motion made for a new trial, which was heard at the general term upon exceptions directed to be heard there in the first instance, they were overruled, and judgment was ordered to be entered for the defendants. There were two grounds taken in opposition to the plaintiff's right to recover, and they are stated in the opinion at the general term as controlling the disposition of the case. One was that the premises in question formerly lay between high-water mark and low-water mark in the Harlem river, and, therefore, did not pass by Gov. Nicolls' grant, in 1666, to the freeholders and inhabitants of Harlem, through whom the plaintiff claims to trace his title. The other ground was that the deeds in evidence did not locate the property, so as to enable the court or the jury to render judgment upon the complaint.

As to the first of these grounds, a careful review of the evidence must lead to the conclusion that almost, if not quite, all of the premises were within high and low water marks of the Harlem river. That is the effect of the maps and of some of the other documentary evidence, and also of the testimony given by the plaintiff's witnesses. If the oral evidence proves anything with any degree of certainty, it is that the land was covered by the rise of the tide in the river. That being so, the case falls within our decision in Sage v. City of New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 47 N. E. 1096, where we held that the title to the lands within the tideway of the Harlem river, between high and low water marks, was vested in the city of New York through Gov. Dongan's charter, in 1686. That case decided that the prior grant of Gov. Nicolls to the inhabitants of Harlem, in 1666, was confined by the western bank of the Harlem river, and did not comprehend within its boundaries the meadows, pastures, and marshes adjoining the bank of the river as a part of the grant; that the eastern limit of the lands granted was highwater mark; and that his grantees took no title to the tideway, or...