St. William's Church v. People

269 A.D. 874 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945

Facts

Alvah Dunning began occupying a tract of land bordering Raquette Lake in 1882, building a dwelling and cultivating crops, and lived there continuously for 17 years. In 1899, Dunning sold his interest in the occupied land to the Raquette Lake Railway Company, which continued intensive occupation and development. The State claimed title to the larger 7,000-acre tract through a tax deed from 1871 and a referee's deed from the Waldo partition of 1884. The State also acquired other undivided interests from Webb and through a 1909 partition suit against Bell & Golding. The plaintiff, St. William's Church, is the successor in title to the Raquette Lake Railway Company.

Procedural history

The case originated in a trial court, where Justice Brewster issued the opinion. This court, an appellate division, affirmed the trial court's judgment, with Justice Brewster taking no part in the appellate decision.

Issue

The legal question is whether the plaintiff established title by adverse possession to a portion of the land, and whether the defendant State's various claims of title, particularly from the Waldo partition, were valid against the plaintiff's claims.

Holding

The court determined that the plaintiff holds a valid title to 50/160 undivided interest in the premises through adverse possession by its predecessors. The defendant State holds a valid title to 110/160 undivided interest through sovereign source, the Waldo partition, and deeds from Webb. The parties are tenants in common.

Rule

Adverse possession requires actual, hostile, open, notorious, and continuous occupancy, which can ripen into title against individual owners but generally not against the State's sovereign title without statutory permission. A grant of real property is void if, at the time of delivery, it is in the actual possession of a person claiming under a title adverse to that of the grantor. Defects in partition suits regarding the plaintiff's standing are not always jurisdictional, but a total lack of jurisdiction over vested parties allows questioning title sufficiency.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-09-18. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.