United States v. Benedict, 394

• Decision Date: 05 March 1923
• Docket Number: No. 394,394
• Parties: UNITED STATES et al. v. BENEDICT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

261 U.S. 294

43 S.Ct. 357

67 L.Ed. 662

UNITED STATES et al.

v BENEDICT.

No. 394.

Argued Jan. 23, 1923.

Decided March 5, 1923.

Mr. C. J. Nehrbas, of New York City, for plaintiff in error City of new york.

The Attorney General, for the United States.

Mr. R. E. T. Riggs, of New York City, for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 295-296 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Relying upon the Lever Act—40 Stat. 276, 279 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8 ii)—the United States took possession of certain land along new York Bay, April 6, 1918, and, as surviving trustee under the will of Langley, defendant in error, Benedict, instituted this proceeding to recover its value. The tract had been platted into blocks and trustees holding the title had undertaken to convey to New York City the beds of Sixty-First, Sixty-Second and Sixty-Third streets from designated avenues 'to New York Bay,' as laid down on the commissioners' map. The city was made defendant to the amended complaint because of possible interest arising out of this conveyance. No right of recovery against it was suggested. It answered rather vaguely, but claimed title to 'the lands included within the limits of Sixty-First street, Sixty-Second street and Sixty-Third street from the westerly side of First avenue to the New York Bay,' and stated that 'the area of said streets is 81,120 square feet.' It asked that the complaint be dismissed. Later it moved, without success, to amend the answer and set up ownership to the beds of Sixty-First, Sixty-Second and Sixty-Third streets to the pierhead line.

The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The United States stipulated that defendant in error had good title to all the tract, upland and submerged, except such as lay within Sixty-First, Sixty-Second and Sixty-Third streets to high-water mark. Among the findings of fact which the city proposed is this——

That on April 25, 1899, the said trustees duly executed and delivered to John Whalen, the then corporation counsel of the city of New York, a deed granting and conveying to the city of New York the fee, impressed with a trust for street purposes, of the lands inclu ed within the limits of Sixty-First street, Sixty-Second street and Sixty-Third street from the westerly side of First avenue to the New York Bay.

Judgment went against the United States for a sum equal to $2 per square foot of the whole area, with interest, less cash originally paid. The trial court held the trustees' deed to the streets invalid, but, if valid, that the recovery nevertheless should be for the same amount as streets were essential to enjoyment of the property. 271 Fed. 714.

Writs of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals were sued out by both defendants. The...