Mayo v. New York Central R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtKellogg, J.
These two actions involve the title to lands under water on the easterly side of the Hudson river, at a point approximately one mile north of the village of Croton-on-Hudson. The plaintiffs claim title to the two parcels involved in the first action and the four parcels involved in the second, as the successors in interest of Stfephanus Van Cortlandt, to whom, in the year 1697, there -was patented by the Crown a large tract of land on the east side of the Hudson river, between the Croton river on the south and Anthony’s Nose on the north, extending through to the Connecticut line on the east.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sage v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Tiffany v. . Town of Oyster BayNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Robins v. . AckerlyNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Grace v. Town of North HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Grace v. . Town of North HempsteadNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mayo v. New York Central Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1934