149 N.Y.S. 788 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1914
The claim here under consideration was filed with the Court of Claims in 1909, and asked for $25,000 damages on account of a permanent improvement in the State’s canals. The property in question is located in North Tonawanda, and the original source of title is the People of the State of New York by letters patent to William James. It may be conceded, for the purposes of this appeal, that the grant of unappropriated lands along the easterly side of the Niagara river, bearing date of March 8, 1824, and conveying lots 81 and 82, carried the title to the thread of Tonawanda creek, and that the grant was made prior to the construction of the Erie canal. It appears, however, that subsequently the State took possession of Tonawanda creek as a part of the canal system of the State, and, under the law as it related to such taking, a mere appropriation of the lands under or above water, for canal purposes, vested the title in the State, and all claims which were not presented within one year from the time of making such appropriation were barred by a short statute of limitations. (Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308; People v. Fisher, 190 id. 468.) This proposition is not questioned, but the claimants contend that the maps put in evidence and relied upon in support of the judgment fail to establish that the lands in question were appropriated. It is urged that the maps known as the Holmes-Hutchinson maps of 1834, and which cover the locus in quo, do not show that the claimants’ lands were appropriated. There is no dispute that these maps were made under the provisions of valid laws, and that they were properly filed in the State offices designated, but it is suggested that they were not properly proved before the Court of Claims, and that it was improper, therefore, for the court to consider the same in reaching its conclusion. The maps in question show the general lines of the canal, with its environment, and at the point involved in this controversy Tonawanda creek is shown in juxtaposition to the canal. In connection with
The further contention that the map, which by statute was made presumptive evidence of the appropriation and title of the State, was improperly considered by the Court of Claims is without force. While it was undoubtedly important to prove the maps if they were to establish presumptively the facts relied upon, they were, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, properly admitted in evidence and constituted some evidence of the facts which they disclosed, and which, in connection with the entire testimony in the case, justified the conclusions of the Court of Claims.
We are equally persuaded that it was not error to admit in evidence the drawings found in the division engineer’s office
We are of the opinion that the learned court below (See 68 Mise. Rep. 607) has fully disposed of all the questions involved in harmony with the law, and that further discussion of the steps by which their conclusion was reached is unnecessary.
The judgment, appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment of the Court of Claims unanimously affirmed, with costs.