Lindel Realty Co. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 20 December 1948
• Docket Number: No. 158/529.,158/529.
• Citation: 62 A.2d 817
• Parties: LINDEL REALTY CO. v. MILLER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

62 A.2d 817

LINDEL REALTY CO.

v.MILLER et al.

No. 158/529.

Superior Court of New JerseyChancery Division.

Dec. 20, 1948.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The State of New Jersey may acquire an interest in lands for highway purposes by two methods, i.e., (1) voluntary act of the owner, or (2) condemnation.

2. Where lands are acquired for highway purposes by the State of New Jersey, by voluntary act of the owner, the State may obtain a title in fee simple.

3. Where title to lands abutting a public street is obtained in fee simple, even though such lands are to be used for highway purposes, the State has the same rights and interests as an individual in a similar situation.

4. When, in a conveyance of land, the premises are described as running along the side of a street, the street, to its center, will be held by legal presumption to be embraced in such description and under ordinary circumstances, nothing short of express words will prevent the street in front of premises so conveyed from passing to the grantee.

5. An owner whose lands abut a highway is entitled to access to such highway, even though the State of New Jersey owns the bed of the highway in fee simple.

6. Access to a highway which is curved, by an owner of an abutting lot, should be between lines which are extended from the point of intersection of the side lines with the highway line, along radial lines perpendicular to the tangent of the circle (center line of the highway) at the point of intersection with such center line.

Action by Lindel Realty Company against Louise Miller, individually and as executrix under the last will of George Miller, deceased, and others involving the question of title to real estate abutting Bridge Boulevard in Camden, New Jersey, and the right of access of adjoining owners to such Boulevard.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Bleakly, Stockwell & Zink and Henry F. Stockwell, all of Camden, for complainant.

David F. Greenberg, of Camden, for defendants.

HANEMAN, Judge.

This suit involves the question of title to real estate abutting Bridge Boulevard in Camden, New Jersey, and the right of access of adjoining owners to said Boulevard.

For the purpose of clarity, here follows a sketch of the properties involved, to which reference will hereafter be made.

In the year 1925 the predecessors in title of the plaintiff owned a rectangular tract of land, a part of the southerly boundary of which is designated A to B on the above diagram. At that time the predecessors in title of the defendants owned two lots of land designated C and D on the above diagram. It is to be noted that as the respective tracts of land then existed they were separated by a 3 feet wide public street or alley. In that year the State of New Jersey was desirous of constructing a state highway over a portion of the lands of the predecessors in title of both the plaintiff and defendants. In pursuance of said purpose, the predecessors in title of the plaintiff conveyed a portion of the above described rectangle to the State of New Jersey, in fee. In said conveyance, which was by metes and bounds, a part of the southerly course of the land so conveyed used as a description the northerly side of the 3 feet wide alley and the 6 feet wide alley, designated A to E on the diagram above.

On the plot herewith submitted, the property line of Bridge Boulevard is designated by the letters F and G. The tract now in question is that triangle formed by the continuance of the easterly property line of lot C to the northerly alley line, the center line of said alley and the property line of Bridge Boulevard, and is designated H on said plot.

The plaintiff contends that the conveyance of its predecessors in title to the State of New Jersey did not convey their interest in said triangle and that the defendants are therefore not entitled to access to the paved portion of said Boulevard over said triangle.

It is to be noted in the above diagram that the portion of the highway existing and marked ‘shoulder’ is unpaved and that the portion of the highway crosshatched on the diagram is the actual paved surface used by the public for passage.

The second question here involved is whether the defendants are entitled to have access to Bridge Boulevard across the ‘shoulder’ and if so, whether such access should be as claimed by them by a continuation of the easterly property line of lot C to the paved portion of Bridge Boulevard or, as the plaintiff claims, by a ‘radial’ line to the center line of Bridge Boulevard from the point at which the property line of Bridge Boulevard intersects the center line of the 3 feet wide alley. In the event that the plaintiff is found not to have title to the triangle, but that the title to said triangle is vested in the State of New Jersey, the question then arises as well whether the defendant should have access to Bridge Boulevard along the continuation of the easterly property line of lot C or by a radial line from the point at which the easterly line of lot C intersects the property line of Bridge Boulevard.

In order for the plaintiff to succeed on its first point, the court must decide that it remained the owner in fee of the triangle designated H, in spite of the conveyance to the State of New Jersey in fee simple of all of the land adjoining the northerly line of the alley. This contemplates a reservation or retention of title in the plaintiff to that portion of the alley adjoining the northerly line of said alley, to the center line thereof. There is no such express reservation in the conveyance from plaintiff's predecessor in title to the State of New Jersey. It is to be noted that in the conveyance from plaintiff's predecessors to the State of New Jersey, the sixth course follows the northerly line of the alley. As is observable from the diagram, a portion of this alley adjacent to and westwardly from the triangle in question is actually in the ‘shoulder’ of Bridge Boulevard, forming a part of its right of way. The conveyance here, as above stated, was in fee simple to the State of New Jersey. This was not a conveyance of an easement alone over plaintiff's lands.

When, in a conveyance of land, the premises are described as beginning at a point on the side of a street, and as running thence along such side, the street, to its center, will be held by legal...