Orendorff v. Steele
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment for premises described in the declaration as “ lot No. 39, in a patent of lands granted to John Jost Petrie.and others, bounded on the north by the Mohawk river, east by lot No. 40 in said patent, being the same lot of land formerly owned by Hendrick Orendorff.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment for premises described in the declaration as “ lot No. 39, in a patent of lands granted to John Jost Petrie.and others, bounded on the north by the Mohawk river, east by lot No. 40 in said patent, being the same lot of land formerly owned by Hendrick Orendorff.” In opening the cause to the jury, the counsel of the plaintiffs stated that he sought to recover possession of an island in the Mohawk river, opposite to Jot 39, as a part of the lot, on the ground that the north line of the said lot extended to the thread of the stream, and would thus embrace the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Gridley, J.
The important question for our decision in this case is, whether the island passed under the description, and as a part of lot 39, of Petrie’s patent. Passing over the proposition that the Mohawk river has been made an exception to the general doctrine of riparian ownership by the action of the government asserting a right to the bed of the stream by grants and acts of legislation for more than a century past, which proposition has been supposed by some to have been established by the court for the correction of errors in The Canal Appraisers v. The People, (17 Wend.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Markell v. KassonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1887
- Lynch v. KupferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Heather Smith v. Metropolitan School District Perry TownshipCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Securities and Exchange Commission, Henry C. Yuen Elsie M. Leung, Intervenors-Appellants v. Gemstar-Tv Guide International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005