Research Regarding the Fordham Family of City Island in the Town of Pelham

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Genealogists believe that most American families of the name "Fordham" descend from Rev. Robert Fordham who came to America before 1641 and, by 1644, settled in Hempstead, Long Island.  The first of his descendants known to have settled in the Town of Pelham was Orrin Frederick Fordham who settled on City Island during the 1830s.  (Some sources say he settled there in 1830; others say 1837.)

Orrin Frederick Fordham was a son of Rufus Fordham (1782 - 1868) and Rebecca Shipman (1786 - 1823).  He was born July 4, 1808 and died on City Island on about August 25, 1845 at the age of 37.  He married Levina Elizabeth Billar (Jan. 16, 1815 - May 29, 1887) who, after his death, remarried to Nathan Clark Bell (1808 - 1890).  (Levina's name is often misspelled as Levinia.)

Orrin F. Fordham became a pioneer in the field of oyster planting.  According to tradition, he invented the concept, although it seems clear that the practice of oyster planting arose in several regions at about the same time and may well have been independently invented by a host of oystermen throughout the region.  In any event, Fordham seems to have pioneered the technique in the region around City Island and Eastchester Bay on Long Island Sound.  See Ingersoll, Ernest, The Oyster-Industry, pp. 88-89 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1881) (Published by Department of the Interior, Tenth Census of the United States, Francis A. Walker, Superintendent - The History and Present Condition of the Fishery Industries Prepared Under the Direction of Professor S. F. Baird by G. Brown Goode) (stating "In these waters are the oldest artificial beds in the East river, for the regular planting of oysters (inaugurated, according to tradition, by Mr. Orrin Fordham) was begun here half a century ago.").

Orrin Fordham was a well-respected citizen of the Town of Pelham.  He served as one of the first trustees of School District No. 2 which served City Island.  One of his younger sisters, Rachel, became the first public school teacher in City Island.  She married Frederick Gladding.  I have written before about Rachel S. Fordham who taught children in her own home until the Town of Pelham built a tiny one-room schoolhouse on City Island in about 1838 or 1839 where she continued her teaching duties.  See Mon., Apr. 07, 2014:  History of A Few of the Earliest Public Schools in the Town of Pelham. 

Undated Photograph of the One-Room Schoolhouse Built

in About 1838 or 1839 in City Island on Land Now Thought

To Be the Current Playground of Public School 175 Located

at 200 City Island Avenue, City Island, The Bronx, NY, 10464.

Orrin Frederick Fordham Likely Was Involved in the Decision

to Build this School as a School Board Trustee.  His Sister,

Rachel, Taught Here.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Orrin Fordham reportedly "was known as a just and conscientious man in all his affairs, and was highly respected by all who knew him."  He and his wife, Levina, were active and respected members of the local Methodist Episcopal Church.

Orrin and Levina Fordham had five children who likewise became respected citizens of the Town of Pelham.  They were:

1.  Mary Rebecca Fordham, born in 1843.  She married Alexander Rolfe and had a son who lived on City Island, Thadeus C. Rolfe.  She died October 11, 1862, aged 39.

2. Sarah E. Fordham.  She married George F. Carew on February 21, 1857.  The couple had eight children.

3.  Orrin Frederick Fordham, born in 1841 and died November 27, 1863, aged 22.

4.  John Oscar Fordham, born on City Island on April 2, 1844.  He married Angeline A. Jennings, born March 20, 1848.  John O. Fordham became a notable City Island resident.  (See below.)

5.  William Rufus Fordham, who married Mary L. Johnson and lived thereafter on City Island.  He also became a notable City Island resident.  (See below.)

John Oscar Fordham followed in his father's footsteps and became a well-respected Hell Gate Pilot, oysterman, and shipyard pioneer.  According to one authority:

"John O. Fordham, the fourth child and second son of Orrin Frederick Fordham, was born at City Island, April 2, 1844.  His early education was received at the public schools, and at the early age of thirteen he entered upon the practical duties of life, and in his fourteenth year began to learn the trade of stone mason with his brother-in-law, Alexander Rolfe, and served faithfully an apprenticeship of five years.  He did not, however, pursue his trade, having become engaged in navigation on the Long Island Sound, and served a number of years under the tuition of Captain Benjamin F. Horton; after the death of Captain Horton, Mr. Fordham concluded his apprenticeship with Captain Thomas J. Jennings, a noted navigator of Long Island sound.  Mr. Fordham, after received [sic] a license as pilot, pursued his calling for a number of years on the waters of the East river and Long Island sound.  He next became engaged in oyster planting at City Island, and while engaged in this line of pursuit contributed much by his skill and enterprise to the successful development of City Island.  He was instrumental in the establishment of two of the first shipyards, namely, Hillman & Hubbee, now the John P. Hawkins, and the Archibald Robertson ship building establishments.  He was also active in the organization and was one of the charter members of City Island Lodge, No. 712, Free and Accepted Masons, and was the first master of the lodge.  When this portion of Westchester county was annexed to the city of New York, he was one of the trustees of school district No. 2.  John O. Fordham married, July 5, 1866, Angeline A Jennings, born March 20, 1848, daughter of Thomas and Mary Ann (Booth) Jennings.  The latter was a native of Long Island and the former a native of New York City."  (See below.)  

John Oscar Fordham and Angeline A. Jennings Fordham had ten children.  The couple also were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church at City Island where John was Superintendent of the Sunday School for more than sixteen years and remained an active member of the church throughout his life.  

John Oscar Fordham's brother, William Rufus Fordham, also lived on City Island where he was born on October 24, 1845.  As a youngster he attended public school on City Island but, at the age of thirteen "took up the practical duties of life" as had his brother John Oscar Fordham.  William Rufus joined the family's oyster planting business which remained his career and livelihood "throughout the active years of his life."  He married Mary Louise Johnson in New York City on January 7, 1869.  The couple had nine children whom they raised on City Island as well.  

William Rufus Fordham was an active member of the City Island Lodge (later the Pelham Lodge) of Free and Accepted Masons, attaining a high degree of the order.  He died at City Island on June 6, 1903.  

One of the sons of William Rufus Fordham and Mary Louise Johnson Fordham was J. Alred Fordham.  He also became a notable City Island resident in the Town of Pelham.  According to one source:  

"J. Alfred Fordham acquired his elementary training in the schools of City Island, at the age of sixteen entered the Pennington Seminary at Pennington, New Jersey, and upon his return home learned the trade of mason, which line of work he pursued for some time and with his father was engaged in the oyster planting business.  In March 1894, Mr. Fordham was elected town clerk of City Island [sic; Town Clerk of Pelham] and served in that position for a period of over fifteen months, when City Island became annexed to the borough of the Bronx.  In 1898 Mr. Fordham was appointed in the capacity of letter carrier at City Island and has held that position to the present time.  J. Alfred Fordham married, December 28, 1891, Adeline E. Martin, born October 28, 1872, daughter of Thomas and Annie E. (Cochran) Martin and of his marriage have been born three children:  1.  Mary R., born October 31, 1892.  2.  William Alred, born February 15, 1895.  3.  Benjamin Howard, born January 15, 1897.  Mr. and Mrs. Fordham are consistent members of the Methodist church at City Island."  (See below.)

In short, throughout the time that City Island remained part of the Town of Pelham, members of the Fordham family were notable and respected citizens of the town.  Their lives were interwoven with the rich history of 19th century Pelham, particularly its rich maritime history.

Detail from Map of "City Island, Pelham Township, Westchester Co.,

N.Y. [with] Town of Pelham, Westchester Co., N.Y.," Published by F.

W. Beers in 1868 in the "Atlas of New York and Vicinity from

Actual Surveys by and Under the Direction of F.W. Beers,

Assisted by A.B. Prindle & Others," Plate 35.  A Portion of the Fordham

Estate May Be Seen on the Right in the Detail Along With

Properties Owned by Members of the Billar, Rolfe, and Other

Families Who Intermarried with Members of the Fordham Family.

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"THE FAMILY OF FORDHAM.

All the families of the name of Fordham in this country are descended from Rev. Robert Fordham, who came to America before 1641.  Letchford in his book, 'Plaine Dealing' or 'News From New England,' published in 1642, says he was then living in Sudbury, Massachusetts.  In 1644 he accompanied Mr. Denton to Hempstead, Long Island, and he is the first person named in Governor Kieft's patent for that town.  In 1648 he came to Southampton, Long Island, and was the second minister of the church in that place, and labored in the ministry until his death in September, 1674.  The traditions concerning him show that he was of an amiable disposition, and gave general satisfaction in the discharge of his pastoral duties.  He must have been a man of some means, for his estate was inventoried at £1,164.  He possessed what was probably the largest library on Long Island at that time, his books being valued at £53, a large sum for those days.  One of his sons, Rev. Jonah Fordham, was a graduate from Harvard, 1658, and was pastor of the church in Hempstead from 1660 to 1680.  In 1691 he became minister at Brookhaven, and remained several years.  He returned to Southampton and died there, July 17, 1696, aged sixty-three.  Rev. Robert Fordham left wife Elizabeth, and children:  Captain Joseph, Robert, Rev. Jonah, John, Mary, wife of Edward Howell; and Hannah, wife of Samuel Clark.

Captain Joseph Fordham died September 7, 1688.  He had children:  Major Joseph, born July 30, 1669; Elizabeth, Nathan, Peletish, Hanna and Alithea.

Major Joseph Fordham married Mary Maltby, December 5, 1689.  She died March 10, 1719.  Their children were:  Mary, Joseph, born September 19, 1693; Phebe, Alexander, born October 3, 1700; John, born October 27, 1703, and Hannah, born July 19, 1707.  The descendants of these children are very numerous, and the name is still found in Southampton, where their ancestor, Rev. Robert Fordham, labored so many years.

John Fordham, son of Major Joseph Fordham, with many other Southampton families, removed to New Jersey.  He had a son John, and perhaps others, who seem to have removed at a later date to Scranton, Pennsylvania, and was probably the father of Rufus Fordham.  The probability of this appears from the fact that all the other branches of the Fordham family have been traced to other localities.  The father of Rufus Fordham (probably John Fordham) married Rachel Starkey.  Their only son, Rufus Fordham, was born 1782, died July 12, 1868, aged eighty-six.  It has been thought by some that the father of Rufus Fordham, owing to some disagreement with his father-in-law, enlisted as a soldier in the Revolution, and was one of the 'unknown dead.'  His widow married (second) William Parker, and of this marriage had other children.

Rufus Fordham at an early age went to Saybrook, Connecticut, and learned the trade of ship carpenter, in which he became skillful, doing the fine work of finishing off the cabins of vessels built at that place.  He was also largely engaged in the shad fishing, and was the owner of the fishery known as the 'Parsonage Pier.'  He was also the owner of a well conducted and profitable farm.  He was offered a pension by the United States government for services at the old Saybrook Fort, but declined to receive it.

Rufus Fordham married (first) Rebecca Shipman.  Mr. Fordham married (second) Hepsibah Beckwith, who died August 11, 1831.  The third wife of Rufus Fordham was Mehitable Lindergreen.  They were married in Saybrook, November 3, 1839.  There were no children by this marriage.

The children of Rufus Fordham and Rebecca Shipman were:

1.  Orrin Frederick, of City Island.  

2.  Emeline, married Harry Conklin, and had children:  Augustus H., John A., Leander and Julius M.

3.  Lydia, born 1810, died 1823.

4.  Rufus, married Sarah Ann Pratt, July 9, 1838.  She died January 12, 1884, aged sixty-eight.  He was born December 26, 1812, died November 8, 1865, aged seventy-two.  Their children were:  Edward, born April 22, 1839, died December 2, 1849.  Theodore P., born February 3, 1844, married Matte B. Mack, June 9, 1866, and had children:  Ida E., wife of Stephen W. Stearns, and have children:  Charles F., Winchester and Emma J. Stearns; and Flora L., wife of Charles Storrs Hall, who have children; Randolph F. and Theodore P. Hall.  Carried B. George, born January 23, 1852, died December 28, 1852.  Horace, born February 16, 1858, died April 26, 1861.

5.  Patience, born 1815, died September 21, 1898, aged eighty-three.

6.  Rebecca, married Charles S. Burr, and had children:  Frederick, and Jane R. wife of A. A. Giesler.

7.  John S., born 1817, died October 31, 1869, aged fifty-two.  He married Phebe Hulse, no children.

8.  Rachel S., born 1822, died November 7, 1892, aged seventy-two.  She was the first public school teacher in City Island.  She married Frederick Gladding.

9.  Thomas P., born 1820, died June 27, 1901, aged eighty-one.

Rufus Fordham had by his marriage with Hepsibah Beckwith one son, Henry Fordham, born April 7, 1828, married, November 7, 1849, Ann E. Wells, born January 11, 1830.  Their children were:  1.  Emelina A., born May 26, 1852, married, September 2, 1874, A. Charles Bolton; children:  Edna Fordham, born July 24, 1878; Erna Alberts, born February 16, 1882; Lillian Maud, born August 14, 1885; Walter Charles, born June 4, 1895.  2.  H. Fletcher, born July 30, 1858, married, March 19, 1882, Annie Lewis Thomas; children:  Edith May, born June 2, 1887; Daniel Henry, born June 22, 1895.  3.  Frank W., born September 18, 1863, died September 25, 1865.  4.  R. Bertram, born September 28, 1866, died February 23, 1906; married, October 21, 1891, Lillie V. Clark; one child, Erna Alberta, born January 13, 1895.  5.  Annie Wells, born April 23, 1878, married, May 4, 1892, Frederick L. Terry; children:  Frank Fordham, born March 31, 1893, deceased; Frederick Russell, born August 7, 1895; Hattie Annafred, born May 20, 1898.  Henry Fordham, father of these children, died March 21, 1890.

Orrin Frederic Fordham was a thorough representative of this ancient and honorable family.  He married Levina E. Billar, a native of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, born January 16, 1815, and came to City Island, New York, in 1837, and became one of the pioneers in the business of oyster planting.  In this place he passed the remaining years of his life and passed away August 24, 1845.  In 1839 he was a trustee of school district No. 2 in the town of Pelham, being one of the first trustees of the same.  He was known as a just and conscientious man in all his affairs, and was highly respected by all who knew him, and both he and his wife were prominent and useful members of the Methodist Episcopal church.  His widow married Nathan C. Bell, and died May 29, 1887.  The children of Orrin Frederick Fordham were:

1.  Mary Rebecca, wife of Alexander Rolfe.  She died October 11, 1862, aged thirty-nine; has one son surviving, Thadeus C., of City Island.

2.  Sarah E., married, February 21, 1857, George F. Carew, who died September 5, 1894.  Their children were:  1.  George F., Jr., born April 21, 1858, married, January 28, 1885, Margaret Farrell, of Brooklyn, no issue.  2.  Orrin F. born January 15. 1860, died January 12, 1885.  3.  Levina M., born April 30, 1862.  4.  Mary F., born July 31, 1864, married, September 24, 1884, John W. Wood, of Brooklyn; children:  Edna L., Lena E., John W., Annabell E., George ., Elizabeth M., Orrin F., Emily F., Herbert F., Arthur W. and Harold W.  5.  Catherine S., born April, 1868, died October 3, 1869.  6.  Sarah E., born August 31, 1870, married, September 28, 1904, Frederick Yarwood, of Brooklyn, no issue.  7.  Edna L., born December 25, 1879, deceased.  8.  Clara A., born September 3, 1885.

3.  Orrin Frederick, died November 27 1863, aged twenty-two.

4.  John Oscar, the subject of this review.

5.  William R., married Mary L. Johnson, and resides at City Island.

John O. Fordham, the fourth child and second son of Orrin Frederick Fordham, was born at City Island, April 2, 1844.  His early education was received at the public schools, and at the early age of thirteen he entered upon the practical duties of life, and in his fourteenth year began to learn the trade of stone mason with his brother-in-law, Alexander Rolfe, and served faithfully an apprenticeship of five years.  He did not, however, pursue his trade, having become engaged in navigation on the Long Island Sound, and served a number of years under the tuition of Captain Benjamin F. Horton; after the death of Captain Horton, Mr. Fordham concluded his apprenticeship with Captain Thomas J. Jennings, a noted navigator of Long Island sound.  Mr. Fordham, after received [sic] a license as pilot, pursued his calling for a number of years on the waters of the East river and Long Island sound.  He next became engaged in oyster planting at City Island, and while engaged in this line of pursuit contributed much by his skill and enterprise to the successful development of City Island.  He was instrumental in the establishment of two of the first shipyards, namely, Hillman & Hubbee, now the John P. Hawkins, and the Archibald Robertson ship building establishments.  He was also active in the organization and was one of the charter members of City Island Lodge, No. 712, Free and Accepted Masons, and was the first master of the lodge.  When this portion of Westchester county was annexed to the city of New York, he was one of the trustees of school district No. 2.

John O. Fordham married, July 5, 1866, Angeline A Jennings, born March 20, 1848, daughter of Thomas and Mary Ann (Booth) Jennings.  The latter was a native of Long Island and the former a native of New York City.  Of this marriage Mr. Fordham had born to him a family of ten children, as follows:

1.  Orrin Frederick, born August 28 1867.  He married Norma Abbott, August 31, 1893, and has children:  Orrin Frederick and Frances Fordham.  Orrin Frederick Fordham published the City Island Drift for six years, with good ability and success.

2.  Ida Jennings, born July 28, 1870, died October 6, 1903.  She married Frederick Lowndes, October 21, 1897, and had children:  Jennie H., Arthur F. and Dorothy H. Lowndes.

3.  Annie Louisa, born July 12, 1872, married Irving Lowndes, October 28, 1891, and has children:  Harry, Bertha D., Wilfred and Charlotte Lowndes.

4.  Jennie Olivette, born December 6, 1876, died September 3, 1879.

5.  William Johnson, born March 19, 1878, married Lena Milford, of Patchogue, Suffolk county, March 14, 1903.  Of his union there is no issue.  He served in the United States army, in the signal corps, faithfully for a period of three years in the Philippine Islands.  He received a gunshot wound while in action.

6.  Jessie Edna, born September 17, 1880, married Louis F. Bowdish, December 29, 1902, and has two children:  Arvine C. and Catherine L. Bowdish.

7.  Irving Elwood, born June 4, 1883.

8.  Catherine Elizabeth, ,born September 10, 1885.

9.  Albert Allen, born February 26, 1888.

10.  Frank Dexter, born April 17, 1891.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Fordham are consistent members of the Methodist Episcopal church at City Island.  Mr. Fordham has been for a period of over sixteen years superintendent of the Sunday school, and has at all times given his time for church and charitable work.

William Rufus Fordham, father of J. Alred Fordham, was born at City Island, borough of the Bronx, October 24, 1845.  He received his educational training in the schools at City Island.  At the early age of thirteen he took up the practical duties of life, having become engaged in the oyster planting business, which line of pursuit he followed throughout the active years of his life.  He was an active member of City Island Lodge (now Pelham Lodge), Free and Accepted Masons, and during his many years of membership attained to a high degree of the order.

He was married in New York City, January 7, 1869, to Mary Louise Johnson, born January 8, 1850 ,daughter of Jacob and Sarah Jane (Miller) Johnson.  Of this marriage they had born to them a family of nine children:  1.  J. Alfred, born December 28, 1869, see forward.  2.  Minnie Levina, born February 23, 1872, is a missionary of the Episcopal church and foreign mission of New York City, and is at the present time stationed at Ponce, Porto Rico where she has served for a period of over three years.  3.  Sarah J., born April 3, 1874, is a graduated nurse; she married, January 17, 1906, George Spencer.  4. Willietta, born May 10, 1876.  5.  Frances, born November 19, 1879, died June 8, 1880.  6.  William Frederick, born January 12, 1882, died November 4, 1883.  7.  John Oscar, born July 10, 1884.  8.  Howard C., born February 15, 1887.  9.  Clarence, born August 3, 1890.  The father of these children died at City Island, June 6, 1903.  His faithful wife and mother of these children, Mary Louise (Johnson) Fordham, survives her husband and resides in a pleasant cottage on the lands of the old homestead at City Island.

J. Alfred Fordham acquired his elementary training in the schools of City Island, at the age of sixteen entered the Pennington Seminary at Pennington, New Jersey, and upon his return home learned the trade of mason, which line of work he pursued for some time and with his father was engaged in the oyster planting business.  In March 1894, Mr. Fordham was elected town clerk of City Island [sic; Town Clerk of Pelham] and served in that position for a period of over fifteen months, when City Island became annexed to the borough of the Bronx.  In 1898 Mr. Fordham was appointed in the capacity of letter carrier at City Island and has held that position to the present time.

J. Alfred Fordham married, December 28, 1891, Adeline E. Martin, born October 28, 1872, daughter of Thomas and Annie E. (Cochran) Martin and of his marriage have been born three children:  1.  Mary R., born October 31, 1892.  2.  William Alred, born February 15, 1895.  3.  Benjamin Howard, born January 15, 1897.  Mr. and Mrs. Fordham are consistent members of the Methodist church at City Island."

Source:  "THE FAMILY OF FORDHAM" in Pelletreau, William S., Historic Homes and Institutions and Genealogical and Family History of New York, Vol. II, pp. 393-401 (NY, NY:  1907; Reprinted for Clearfield Company, Inc. by Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, MD:  1998) (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via these links).

Page 1 of Probate Papers and Will of Orrin Fordham.

Source:  New York, Wills and Probate Records, 1659 -

1999:  Westchester County, Vol. 27-28:  1843-1845, p.

346 (Available Via Ancestry.com, Paid Subscription

Required).  Text of Page 346 is Transcribed Immediately

Below.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"346

At a Surrogate's Court held in and for the County of West Chester at the Surrogate's office in White Plains on the 4th day of September A D 1845

Present Frederick J. Coffin, Surrogate
In the Matter of proving the     (
last Will and Testament of       (
Orrin Fordham, deceased       (          West Chester County, SS: -- 

Be it Remembered that heretofore upon due application for that purpose to the Surrogate of said County a Citation was duly issued in this matter which Citation with the proof of service thereof was thereafter duly returned to said Surrogate and which said Citation and the proof of service thereof were produced as follows to wit

The People of the State of New York.  By the Grace of God free and Independent.  To Levina Elizabeth Fordham of the Town of Pelham in the County of West Chester and State of New York and Lewis C. Platt Guardian ad litem of Mary Rebecca Fordham, Sarah Elizabeth Fordham, Orrin Frederick Fordham and John Oscar Fordham Minors under the age of twenty one years.  Send Greeting Whereas Drake Wilson Billar of the Town of Pelham has lately applied to our Surrogate of the County of West Chester to have a certain Instrument in writing bearing date the 30th day of July 1845 purporting to dispose of both real and personal Estate duly proved as the last Will and Testament of Orrin Fordham late of the Town of Pelham aforesaid deceased, in pursuance of the Statute in such case made and provided.  You and each of you are Cited and required personally to be and appear before our said Surrogate at his office in the Town of White Plains in the said County on the 17th day of September inst' at on o'clock in the afternoon of that day then and there to attend to the probate of said last Will and Testament.

In Testimony Whereof we have caused the seal of office of our our [sic] said Surrogate of the County of West Chester to be hereunto affixed

Witness Frederick J. Coffin, Surrogate of said County at the Town of White Plains the 4th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty five and of our Independence the seventieth

Fred'k J. Coffin, Surrogate"

Page 2 of Probate Papers and Will of Orrin Fordham.

Source:  New York, Wills and Probate Records, 1659 -

1999:  Westchester County, Vol. 27-28:  1843-1845, p.

347 (Available Via Ancestry.com, Paid Subscription

Required).  Text of Page 347 is Transcribed Immediately

Below.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"347

I do hereby admit due service of the within Citation Dated 4th September, 1845

Witness F. J.           (
                                               Levina Elizabeth Fordham
Coffin, Surrogate    ( 

I do hereby admit due service of the within Citation upon me as Guardian for the Minors within named Dated 4th September, 1845

Witness Present
Fred'k J. Coffin      (
                                                Lewis C. Platt
Surrogate              (

And thereupon the last Will and Testament of the said Orrin Fordham deceased and the proofs thereof were produced as follows to wit

Know all men by these Presents that I Orrin Fordham of ( City Island in the Town of Pelham County of West Chester and State of New York do make this my last Will and Testament

It is my wish and disire [sic] to give and bequeath to my wife Levina Elizabeth Fordham the whole of my real and personal Estate in trust for my children now living or such as may be borned [sic] in eight months from this time to be applied for the support and education of the said above mentioned children equally providing my wife the person above named does remain my widow if not it is my wish that the herein after named Drake Willard Billar shall be the acting Administrator alone and I do hereby empower him to act as such as the law does provide in such cases, in case my wife the person above named does remain my widow until the youngest child becomes of age it is my wish that she my said wife and my Brother in Law Drake Willard Billard the the [sic] person above named shall by my Administrators with power to act as such jointly and to do such things as the law requires and the necisities [sic] of my family demands [sic]

In Witness Whereof I do set my hand and seal this thirtyeth [sic] day of July one thousand eight hundred and forty five

In presence of
Joseph B. Horton     (
                                                   Orrin Fordham (L. S.)
Abram Coockrue      ( "

Page 3 of Probate Papers and Will of Orrin Fordham.

Source:  New York, Wills and Probate Records, 1659 -

1999:  Westchester County, Vol. 27-28:  1843-1845, p.

348 (Available Via Ancestry.com, Paid Subscription

Required).  Text of Page 348 is Transcribed Immediately

Below.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"348

West Chester County     (
State of New York          (     SS:--

In the presence of me the said Orrin Fordham the person known by me to be the one mentioned in this Indenture and to the best of my judgment to be in a sound state of mind and fully competent of making a Will acknowledge to be in a sound state of mind and fully competent of making a Will acknowledge to me that this is his last Will and Testament and wishes it to go in force as it is drafted and expressed in said Indenture if necessary

Acknowledged before me this thirtyeth [sic] day of July at City Island in the Town of Pelham County of West Chester and State of New York in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty five

James Hinman
Justice Peace

West Chester County, SS: -- 

Levina Elizabeth Fordham of the Town of Pelham in the said County of West Chester being duly sworn doth depose and say that she is the Widow of Orrin Fordham late of the said Town of Pelham dec'd that the Instrument now shown to the deponent by the Surrogate of the County of West Chester purporting to be the last Will and Testament of her deceased husband was executed by her said husband in her presence that after her said husban had executed the same he delivered it to this deponent for safe keeping that this deponent locked the same up in a trunk and that the same has there remained until this morning when this deponent unlocked the trunk and took the said Instrument therefrom and delivered the same to her Brother Drake Wilson Billar named therein that the said Instrument is in the same state and condition it was in when received by her from her husband as above state in now wise altered

Sworn this 4th day of               (
September 1845 before me     (          Levina Elizabeth Fordham
Frederick J. Coffin Surrogate   (
West Chester County, SS:  --

Drake Wilson Billar being duly sworn deposeth and saith that on the 4th day of September instant he received the Instrument now presented to him by the Surrogate of the County of West Chester purporting to be the last Will and Testament of Orrin Fordham late of Pelham in said County deceased from his Sister Levina Elizabeth Fordham that he delivered the said Instrument to the said Surrogate for probate having received the same for that purpose of being presented to the said Surrogate for probate that the said Instrument is in the same state and condition it was in when received by him of his said Sister in no wise altered

Sworn this 4th September 1845 before    (
                                                                     Drake Wilson    X     Billar    his mark
Fred'k J. Coffin, Surrogate                       (  "

Page 4 of Probate Papers and Will of Orrin Fordham.

Source:  New York, Wills and Probate Records, 1659 -

1999:  Westchester County, Vol. 27-28:  1843-1845, p.

349 (Available Via Ancestry.com, Paid Subscription

Required).  Text of Page 349 is Transcribed Immediately

Below.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"349

In the Matter of proving the           (
last Will and Testament of             (
Orrin Fordham deceased              (

West Chester County, SS: -- 

Be it Remembered that on this 17th day of September in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty five before Frederick J. Coffin Surrogate of the said County personally appeared Abraham Coockrue who being by the said Surrogate duly sworn and examined doth depose and say that this deponent was well acquainted with Orrin Fordham deceased that he was present as a witness and did see the said Orrin Fordham deceased subscribe at the end thereof the Instrument now produced and shown to the deponent purporting to be the last Will and Testament of the said Orrin Fordham deceased bearing the date the 30th day of July in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty five; that such subscription was made by the said Testator in the presence of this deponent that the said Testator at the same time declared the Instrument so subscribed by him to be last Will and Testament.  Whereupon this deponent signed his name at the end thereof at the request of the said Testator in the presence of the said Testator and in the presence of the other Subscribing witness and that the said Testator at the time of Executing and publishing the said last Will and Testament was of full age of sound mind and memory and not under any restraint.

Sworn this 17th day of September     (
1845 before me Frederick J. Coffin    (          Abram Coockrue
Surrogate                                           (

West Chester County, SS: -- Be it Remembered that on this 17th day of September in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty five before Frederick J. Coffin Surrogate of the said County personally appeared Joseph B. Horton who being by the said Surrogate duly sworn and examined doth depose and say that this deponent was well acquainted with Orrin Fordham deceased subscribe at the end thereof the Instrument now produced and shown to the deponent purporting to be the last Will and Testament of the said Orrin Fordham deceased being date the 30th day of July in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty five that such subscription was made by said Testator in the presence of this deponent that the said Testator at the same time declared the Instrument so subscribed by him to be his last Will and Testament whereupon this deponent signed his name at the end thereof at the request of the said Testator in the presence of the said Testator and in the presence of the other subscribing witness and that the said Testator at the time of Executing and publishing the said Will and Testament was of full age of sound mind and memory and not under any restraint"

Page 5 of Probate Papers and Will of Orrin Fordham.

Source:  New York, Wills and Probate Records, 1659 -

1999:  Westchester County, Vol. 27-28:  1843-1845, p.

350 (Available Via Ancestry.com, Paid Subscription

Required).  Text of Page 350 is Transcribed Immediately

Below.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"350

Sworn this 17th day of September 1845     (
before me Frederick J. Coffin, Surrogate,   (          Joseph B. Horton
West Chester County                                  (
Surrogate's Court                                        (

Recorded the procedding [sic] last Will and Testament of Orrin Fordham deceased as a Will of Real and Personal Estate duly proved together with the proofs examinations and other proceedings taken and had in the Court of the Surrogate of West Chester relating to the proving of said last Will and Testament which Record is hereby signed and Certified by me pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Statutes the 17th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty five and of our Independence the seventieth.

Fred'k J. Coffin, Surrogate"

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Pelham's Involvement in the "Battle" of Harlem Bridge During the Late 1830s and Beyond

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

During the mid-1790s, a man named John B. Coles obtained rights under a State statute to construct what became known as "The First Harlem Bridge" from Harlem on Manhattan Island across the Harlem River to the settlement of Morrisania on the mainland in what then was Westchester County.  Coles built the bridge, with a draw in the center to allow masted ships to pass, in exchange for authorization to collect tolls for the next sixty years.  

Coles also was required by State statute to construct a broad roadway (four rods wide) from the Harlem Bridge through Westchester County to connect with the Old Boston Post Road at Eastchester and Pelham.  The route selected for that roadway led from the bridge (that in modern times became known as the "Third Avenue Bridge") to about East 163rd Street in today's Bronx, then eastward down a hill across Mill Brook (today's Brook Avenue in the Bronx), and then northward through Boston Avenue, which it followed to West Farms, crossing the Bronx River at the so-called "Bleach" below Bronxdale and continuing through Eastchester and Pelham (on today's Colonial Avenue) until it joined at New Rochelle the ancient Boston Road. 

Coles built the bridge and the roadway as authorized by statute and began collecting tolls.  Coles was authorized to use eminent domain to create the roadway, but apparently had some difficulties.  Some landowners were not paid for their lands taken for the roadway for quite some time.  New York City, in turn, built a new roadway leading to the bridge.

"The First Harlem Bridge, N. Y., 1860.  From Valentine's Manual."

Source:  Jenkins, Stephen, The Story of the Bronx From the Purchase

Made by the Dutch from the Indians in 1639 to the Present Day, opp. p. 196

(New York and London:  G. P. Putnam's Sons The Knickerbocker Press, 1912).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

The new roadways contributed to the growth of then-lower Westchester County (since annexed and now part of the Bronx). Indeed, it made it more convenient for many to travel to Pelham, Eastchester, and New Rochelle, leading to additional development in those portions of Westchester County as well.  

The toll bridge was wildly successful because the convenient route to lower Westchester became so heavily traveled.  Indeed, in 1808, Coles obtained authorization from New York State and incorporated the venture as "The Harlem Bridge Company."  He sold shares in the company to a small group of investors who thereafter received dividend payments.

During the early to mid-19th century, Harlem, Morrisania, and West Farms grew at a surprising pace.  Traffic over the Harlem Bridge grew concomitantly.  The Harlem Bridge Company and its investors prospered.  At the same time, local citizens began to chafe over the tolls.  During the late 1830s, a group of Westchester residents decided to do something about it.

The men commenced a State court proceeding by "writ of quo warranto" against the Harlem Bridge Company and its shareholders, among others.  The nature of the proceeding was quite significant.  A writ of quo warranto is a notice of demand for a court to hold a hearing within a very short time to require a respondent to present proof of the respondent's authority to hold an office or maintain a franchise.  Such a writ is pursued on behalf of the people and is different than a petition or a motion to show cause, for example, because the burden of proof rests on the respondent to show the authority to hold the office or maintain the franchise.  The burden of proof does not rest on those who commence the proceeding to show that the respondent has no authority to hold the office or maintain the franchise. 

The Westchester County men who were behind the writ of quo warranto were known as "relators."  "Relator" is another legal term that references a private person at whose relation (i.e., on whose behalf) an application for a quo warranto is filed.  Although the "relator" is the one with a beneficial interest in the dispute, the proceeding is brought by the relator on behalf of the people of the State.  The State, in turn, had the right to participate in the matter if it wished.  In this particular instance, the Attorney General of the State of New York State pursued the matter on behalf of the relators.  

Broadly speaking, without regard to the legal niceties of the nature of the proceeding, New York State supported a proceeding on behalf of a group of Westchester County men against the Harlem Bridge Company questioning the validity of that company's franchise to operate the toll bridge and, thus, its right to exact tolls from those who crossed the bridge.  

The case was styled The People of the State of New York, ex. rel.  Thomas E. Taylor, et als. versus Samuel M. Thompson, Samuel Fluellen, Wm. F. Coles and Isaac U. Coles, assigns of John B. Coles, and stockholders and proprietors of the Harlem Bridge and its Company.  The matter soon became known far and wide, however, as simply "The Harlem Bridge Case."

Towns throughout lower Westchester County, including the Town of Pelham, had an abiding interest in the outcome of the matter.  If the franchise of The Harlem Bridge Company could be nullified, the bridge would become a free bridge not only reducing the cost of one mode of travel from lower Westchester County to New York City, but also likely increasing the number of travelers using the route and even increasing the pace of the development of the region.  

Significantly, although the State of New York and the New York Attorney General supported the matter on behalf of the relators, the relators were required to fund the proceeding.  This meant that the relators had to raise funds of their own or via subscriptions from others to pay the costs of the matter.

On May 2, 1838, a trial of the matter began before Judge Edwards of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.  We are lucky to have an extensive newspaper account of the first day of the trial during which the issues before the Court were laid out in detail and counsel for the Harlem Bridge Company and its shareholders presented proof of the validity of the franchise to operate the bridge and charge tolls on it for sixty years.  

There were six issues before the Court, as noted in the newspaper report:

"1st issue.  Was John B. Coles the assignee of Morris?

2d.  Whether John B. Coles did build the bridge at a certain time, according to the provisions of the act, and in a certain way therein specified.

3d.  Whether he kept the bridge in good repair, according to the requirements in the act made and provided.

4th.  Whether the defendants are stockholders and proprietors in that bridge or not.

5th.  Whether a road was constructed for 8 miles from the bridge to East Chester and cleared properly for the convenience of travellers [sic], according to an act passed for that purpose, by which John B. Coles was allowed to charge 50 per cent additional toll for 60 years, on compliance with the provisions of the same. 

6.  Did John B. Coles give a bond to the people of the state of New York, to the amount of ten thousand dollars for the due and proper fulfillment of the conditions of the act of 1795."


The two issues to which a great deal of attention was devoted on the first day of trial involved:  (1) whether John B. Coles built the 8-mile long road from the Harlem Bridge to Eastchester as was required and whether the road was "cleared properly for the convenience of travellers [sic]" as required; (2) whether Coles posted a $10,000 bond with the State of New York to secure his obligations to keep the bridge and, for a time, the road in a state of good repair.  The State of New York could find no evidence of having received such a bond and the Harlem Bridge Company could present no evidence that Coles provided the bond before his death in 1827.  Instead, the Harlem Bridge Company argued that a later statute enacted by the State of New York made reference to the bond and, thus, New York could not deny receiving due to its admission in the later statute.

On October 18, 1838, Judge Edwards read a decision in the matter in open court.  The judge ruled in favor of the relators and against the Harlem Bridge Company and its franchise.  The Evening Post in New York City the next day reported as follows:

"HARLEM BRIDGE COMPANY.  --  A verdict was rendered in the Circuit Court yesterday, in relation to the Harlem bridge Company, the effect of which, according to the opinion of several lawyers who were in Court when it was delivered, will be to place the bridge at the disposal of the legislature.  It is understood, however, that the Company will appeal from this verdict, and carry the case to the Supreme Court."

It is not clear from the extant record revealed so far by research but either the written opinion was not released for months thereafter or there were some additional proceedings in the Supreme Court not yet clear from the record.  In any event, in June, 1839, New York City newspapers reported that the opinion had "recently" been released and that "the proprietors no longer possess the right of exacting tolls from the public." 

On June 8 and June 9, 1839, according to one news report, rumors surged through New York City that as a consequence of the decision,
a party of citizens of Harlem had taken possession of the gates and toll-houses of the Harlem Bridge, and that throughout the day the bridge had been passed by carriages and foot passengers free of toll."  

By mid-June, 1839, elation turned to frustration.  By that day, attorneys for The Harlem Bridge Company had appealed to New York's "Court for the Correction of Errors" to begin the process of appealing the decision of the lower court.  The relators, it appears, promptly sought the financial assistance of surrounding towns, including Pelham, to help fund the response to the appeal.  

On Thursday, June 20, 1839, a large public meeting was held at a tavern in Eastchester.  Among the many Westchester residents who attended, including many men or prominence and many town officials, Stephen Sneden Pell, a former Pelham Town Supervisor and notable town resident, and James Townsend, a respected town resident who only two years later would likewise serve as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham.  

Attendees discussed The Harlem Bridge Case at length, then appointed a committee of five attendees including Stephen Sneden Pell to retire briefly and draft "resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting."  The Committee of five returned to the meeting after a short time and proposed the following resolutions which were adopted unanimously:

"Whereas, This meeting has been officially informed, that the Haerlem Bridge Company have appealed from the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Errors, and that more expenses will be incurred by the relators in consequence thereof; therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee of fifteen be appointed for the purpose of taking up subscriptions to aid in the defence of the suit now pending against the Haerlem Bridge Company, or any other that may grow out of it, and also to aid in the repair of the road called Cole's Road, adjacent to the Bridge, should the same be adjudged as belonging to the people.  

Resolved, That the money collected be paid into the hands of the relators, to be by them disbursed according to the terms of the foregoing resolution.

Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Relators to defend any individual who shall or may have contributed towards the expense of this litigation, against any suit which the Haerlem Bridge Company may institute for the recovery of tolls; or, if necessary, to proceed against the said Company, or their agents, by indictment or otherwise, for obstructing the highway or extorting tolls.

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting, and of the public, are justly due to the Relators in the above cause, for their firmness and attention to their trust, which has been conducted by them, through circumstances of the most trying and vexatious character, to a favorable issue.

Resolved, That we have undiminished confidence in the justice of our cause, and the wisdom of our judges.

Resolved, That this meeting hereby confirms the powers of the Relators previously granted them, and also authorizes them to confer with the Corporation of New York, and to make any arrangements in relation to the Haerlem Bridge, which they may think necessary for the interest of the inhabitants of this County, or take any other measures needful in the premises."

Pursuant to the resolutions, the meeting then appointed the requisite committee of fifteen to collect subscription fees to fund defense of the appeal by The Harlem Bridge Company.  Among the fifteen selected was James Townsend of Pelham.  

With such support, the relators were able to undertake defense of the appeal by the Harlem Bridge Company.  That defense, however, did not go so well.  

On Saturday, December 26, 1840, the decision of the Court of Errors in The Harlem Bridge Case was released.  By a vote of 11 to 10, the members of the Court reversed the lower court decision and, in effect, ordered that the matter begin anew.  At least as of that time, the franchise of The Harlem Bridge Company to operate the bridge and charge its tolls remained valid.

Research has not yet revealed any further proceedings in The Harlem Bridge Case.  Indeed, the matter may have ended there, because it is clear that The Harlem Bridge Company continued charging tolls for years thereafter.  Moreover, as 1858 approached (the end of the sixty-year period to collect tolls), the company engaged in "strenuous efforts" to renew its franchise.  Finally, New York State stepped in and blocked such efforts, mandating that the bridge would become free as of April 1, 1858 and empowering the Counties of New York and Westchester "to provide for its maintenance or to build a new bridge."

According to Stephen Jenkins in his Story of The Bronx:

"In June, 1860, W. H. McAlpine was appointed engineer, and plans were devised for building a new bridge with an iron draw and stone piers at a cost of three hundred thousand dollars, while better facilities were planned for the convenience of passing vessels.

This second Third Avenue, or Harlem Bridge, as it was commonly called, was built of cast iron.  The piers, instead of being stone as originally planned, were iron cylinders which were sunk to their proper places and filled with ballast.  The whole structure, especially the piers, was considered at that time a most remarkable piece of engineering, and as a great and ingenious advance in bridge-building.  The wooden draw of the old Coles bridge was towed to City Island, where it did duty as the draw of the old wooden bridge there until its demolition in 1902."

Pelham may have supported efforts to make The Harlem River Bridge free in the late 1830s and 1840s, but it was not to be.  The bridge remained a toll bridge for sixty years, until April 1, 1858.

*          *          *          *          *

Below is the text of a number of items related to today's Historic Pelham article.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.  

"In 1790, Lewis Morris obtained from the State Legislature a franchise to build a dam bridge from Harlem to Morrisania.  This franchise he assigned to John B. Coles, who, in 1795, received from the Legislature an extension of the privileges already granted, which allowed him to build a stone dam across the river as a foundation for his bridge, which should hold back the waters of the Harlem and furnish power for mills to be established along its banks.  The navigation of the stream was not to be interrupted, however, and a suitable opening, attended by a lock-keeper, was to be left for the passage of vessels.  The bridge was to be constructed within four years, and Coles and his assigns were to collect the tolls for sixty years, provided they kept the bridge in repair; at the expiration of that period the bridge was to vest in the State.

By the act of 1790, Lewis Morris was authorized to appoint three commissioners to act as a highway commission to lay out a road from the proposed bridge through Morrisania, West Farms, and Eastchester, and at the last named place to connect with the main road to Boston.  Morris was to pay the commissioners, but the cost of the condemnation proceedings and of the road was to be paid by the towns through which it was to pass.  The highway commission of the city of New York was also authorized to lay out a road on Manhattan Island to the Harlem end of the bridge.  The road through Westchester County was to be four rods wide, a width which, before the Revolution, would have given it the name of the 'King's Highway,' that being the legal width of a post-road in England or the colonies.  The route selected by the commission led from the bridge via the present Third Avenue to about East 163d Street, thence eastwardly down a hill across Mill Brook (Brook Avenue), and thence northerly through Boston Avenue, which it followed to West Farms, crossing the Bronx River at the 'Bleach' below Bronxdale; and continuing through Eastchester and Pelham till it joined at New Rochelle the ancient Boston Road, which came from Kingsbridge via Williamsbridge.

Difficulties arose with the property owners whose land was taken for the road, as they were not promptly paid; notwithstanding which, the Legislature of 1797 declared the road a public highway and directed Coles to finish it at his own expense, at the same time authorizing him, for a period of thirty years, to increase the bridge tolls, not to exceed fifty per cent. of those already prescribed by previous statutes.  This was to reimburse him for his additional outlay in completing the road; but he was to keep it in repair during that time.  In the following year, 1798, he was relieved of this last condition and his increase of bridge tolls cut down to a twenty-five per cent. advance.  This was due to the fact that the State had partially paid for the construction of the road under the act of 1797, which empowered the State to aid in the improvement of public roads; the money was obtained by a public lottery.  It was just about a century later that the wheelmen, the good roads associations, and drivers generally succeeded in getting the State once more to give aid to the counties and towns in constructing and grading the public highways; a law whose benefit is seen in the fine highways that are gradually but steadily appearing in all sections of the State under the guidance of competent engineers and roadbuilders, instead of that of the rural road-master.  This improvement in road-building has affected the Coles road; for in the fall of 1911 work was begun to widen the more than century-old road and make it a State road.  Work is progressing from Pelham Parkway northward as this is written.  

The rates of toll as authorized by the Legislature for the use of the bridge were as follows:

Every four-wheeled pleasure carriage and horses..............37 1/2 cents
"  two-wheeled pleasure carriage and horse.......................19         "
"  pleasure sleigh and horses..............................................12 1/2   "
"  common wagon and horses.............................................12 1/2   "
"  common sled....................................................................12 1/2   "
Ox cart and oxen.................................................................12 1/2   "
Every one-horse cart and horse..........................................  9         "
"  man and horse.................................................................  9         "
"  ox, cow, or steer...............................................................  1       cent
"  dozen hogs, sheep, or calves, and so in
          proportion for a greater or less number.....................  6       cents
For every foot passenger.....................................................  3       cents

State and United States troops, with their artillery, carriages, and stores were to have free passage.

The new road through Westchester County, and that built on the island of Manhattan to meet it diverted travel from the King's and Farmers' bridges at Spuyten Duyvil, as the course to and from Eastchester for eastern travel was much shorter and more direct by the new bridge and road.  The bridge was so well patronized and was so financially successful that we find the owners petitioning the Legislature in 1808 for incorporation as the Harlem Bridge Company, a petition that was granted.  Before the expiration of the sixty years for which the franchise was given originally, Morissania and Harlem had grown apace, and the bridge was inadequate for the amount of traffic that passed over it, and the lock too small for the accommodation of passing vessels.  Still, strenuous efforts were made by the company for the renewal of its charter as 1858 approached.  The Legislature took the matter in hand, and after reciting the fact that the bridge would become free on April 1, 1858, empowered the counties of New York and Westchester to provide for its maintenance or to build a new bridge.  In June, 1860, W. H. McAlpine was appointed engineer, and plans were devised for building a new bridge with an iron draw and stone piers at a cost of three hundred thousand dollars, while better facilities were planned for the convenience of passing vessels.

This second Third Avenue, or Harlem Bridge, as it was commonly called, was built of cast iron.  The piers, instead of being stone as originally planned, were iron cylinders which were sunk to their proper places and filled with ballast.  The whole structure, especially the piers, was considered at that time a most remarkable piece of engineering, and as a great and ingenious advance in bridge-building.  The wooden draw of the old Coles bridge was towed to City Island, where it did duty as the draw of the old wooden bridge there until its demolition in 1902."

Source:  Jenkins, Stephen, The Story of the Bronx From the Purchase Made by the Dutch from the Indians in 1639 to the Present Day, pp. 193-96 (New York and London:  G. P. Putnam's Sons The Knickerbocker Press, 1912).  

"In 1795 the State Legislature granted a franchise to John B. Coles to build a dam bridge across the Harlem River.  This is known as the first Third Avenue, or Harlem, Bridge.  Heretofore all persons going from Manhattan to the mainland, and vice versa, were obliged to travel in a round about way across Spuyten Duyvil Creek by ford or ferry or bridge.  The bridge was to be constructed within four year, and the ownership was to be vested in Coles for sixty years, after which period it was to become the property of the State.  A lock, attended by a lock-keeper, was to permit the passage of vessels.

The tolls which Cole was authorized to collect, provided he kept the bridge in repair, ranged from one cent for every ox, cow, or steer and three cents for every pedestrian to thirty-seven and a half cents for every four-wheeled pleasure carriage and horses that passed the bridge.  At the expiration of the sixty years, the Harlem Bridge Company, which was incorporated in 1808, loathe to relinquish so rich a pudding, made efforts to procure an extension of its franchise; but the State Legislature turned it over to the counties of New York and Westchester, who converted it into a free thorofare.  

For almost seventy years the Harlem Bridge did noble service across the Harlem River, when, owing to the increased traffic between Harlem and Morrisania, it was found necessary to replace it with an iron structure.  This second Third Avenue, or Harlem, Bridge was in turn removed to make room for a more modern steel and iron bridge with a draw of 300 feet.  The third Harlem Bridge was opened to the public on August 1st, 1898, at a cost to the City of $2,357,742.51."

Source:  Cook, Harry T., The Borough of the Bronx 1639 - 1913 Its Marvelous Development and Historical Surroundings, pp. 48-49 (NY, NY:  Published by the Author, 1913).

"Important Trial.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR THIS CIRCUIT. -- Before Judge Edwards. -- Wednesday, May 2.

The People of the State of New York, ex. rel.  Thomas E. Taylor, et als. versus Samuel M. Thompson, Samuel Fluellen, Wm. F. Coles and Isaac U. Coles, assigns of John B. Coles, and stockholders and proprietors of the Harlem Bridge and its Company.

This is one of the most important cases that has come up for trial for some time past.  It is neither more nor less than an endeavor, by a verdict of a jury, to annul and vitiate the charter, by virtue of which the proprietors of Harlem Bridge now take toll, and have done so for some years past, and to throw the bridge open for the free passage of the public.

The case came up in the nature and form of a quo warranto [NOTE:  a quo warranto is a writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or exercised], and as the affirmative of the issue lay with them, the case was opened by the defendants.

On the part of the people, the case was conducted by S. Beardsley, Attorney General for the State of New York, D. Lord, jun., George Wilson and Peter A. Jay.  On the part of the defendants, the case was conducted by Benj. F. Butler, Attorney General for the United States, Griffin the elder, and George W. Strong.

Mr. Griffin stated, that by an act of the legislature of this state, passed in 1790, Lewis Morris was authorized to build a bridge across the Harlem river; he did not build it, but conveyed his right and title under the act to John B. Coles.  An act was passed by the legislature in 1795, authorizing John B. Coles to build a bridge across the Harlem river; the bridge to be 24 feet wide, the width between the arches to be 25 feet, and a drawer or drawbridge to be made, the width of it to be 12 feet, so as to allow 'the free passage of vessels with fixed standing masts.'

An act was also passed allowing John B. Coles to construct a stone dam across the Harlem river, and to make a lock 8 feet wide, so as to allow the passage of vessels drawing 2 feet of water.

The questions, as raised and contested under several issues joined, were these: --

1st issue.  Was John B. Coles the assignee of Morris?

2d.  Whether John B. Coles did build the bridge at a certain time, according to the provisions of the act, and in a certain way therein specified.

3d.  Whether he kept the bridge in good repair, according to the requirements in the act made and provided.

4th.  Whether the defendants are stockholders and proprietors in that bridge or not.

5th.  Whether a road was constructed for 8 miles from the bridge to East Chester and cleared properly for the convenience of travellers [sic], according to an act passed for that purpose, by which John B. Coles was allowed to charge 50 per cent additional toll for 60 years, on compliance with the provisions of the same. 

6.  Did John B. Coles give a bond to the people of the state of New York, to the amount of ten thousand dollars for the due and proper fulfillment of the conditions of the act of 1795.

The act of the Legislature of March 31, 1790, was then read, authorizing Morris to build the bridge and take toll for 60 years.

The deed of assignment of right, title, interest &c. &c. from Morris to Coles was read.

The act of March 24th, 1795, was read, authorizing Coles to build the bridge.

An act of 30th March, 1797, was introduced, containing admissions by the Legislature that Coles built the bridge according to the provisions of the act.  This was also recited in the plea.  This was laid down as being good evidence as the people of the state of New York were plaintiffs, and had recited this in the act of 1797.

Mr. Griffin then contended that the two first issues were disposed of.  He contended that the counsel for the plaintiffs had joined the 4 first issues in one common traverse; they deny those facts altogether; and we hold ourselves excused if we prove any one of those four issues true, because they traverse them together not in the nature of a special traverse, but as a common traverse.

Mr. Griffin then came to the 5th issue, whether John B. Coles caused a road to be made and cleared properly for the convenience of travellers [sic].

It also appeared that by the act of 1790, the arches of the bridge were to be 30 feet wide; the act of 1795 narrowed the arches from 30 to 25 feet.  

An act passed in 1797, allowed him to take 50 per cent. extra toll if he made a road to East Chester and kept it in repair, for all who wanted to see it.

An act passed in 1798, released him from keeping the road in repair.

The pleadings therefore aver that he had a right to exact 50 per cent if he merely constructed that road, yea or nay.  The act of the Legislature directed at a certain time that the road should be opened through sundry lands, not then opened, although the owners might not have received the money for those lands.

The only material point, therefore, Mr. G. contended, on that head, was whether Coles made the road as roads were made in 1797, because upon the presumption that he had, he, his heirs, and assigns had taken 50 per cent additional toll, and meant to do so for 60 years from the year 1795.

On the question whether Coles did sell and convey divers rights to divers persons, and whether the defendants were stockholders or not, they called

Walter W. Townsend.  He produced the transfer book of the Company -- identified J. B. Coles's hand writing; he also read certain transfers and assignments of several shares to three of the defendants from Coles himself.  The transfer to the other defendant, Fluellon, was first made to Isaac Clauson by Coles, and from Dickenson, Remsen, and Delaplaine, Clauson's executors, to Fluellen.  All these transfers purported to be of shares in the Harlem Bridge Company.

Mr. Lord moved to rule out this testimony, as irrelevant because the counsel did not follow it up by showing that this company did own the bridge or did construct it.

The Judge asked what was the constitution of the company.  This was a good time to introduce that testimony if it was afterwards connected properly with the proprietorship of the bridge, otherwise it was of no use; it was at present imperfect as it did not prove the issue.

Mr. Griffin then went to the next issue, whether Coles, his heirs and assigns, had been for years in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the bridge and its profits.

Mr. W. W. Townsend swore that they had ever since he could remember.  Thomson, J. A. Coles, and W. F. Coles had received dividends from the tolls of the bridge for 25 years; Mr. Fluellen had do so for 18 years.  J. B. Coles &c, had used and enjoyed all the liberties and franchise assigned by Morris.  John B. Coles died January 2, 1827.  Up to his death he participated in the tolls of the bridge.  A toll house has been kept there, and a toll keeper appointed from day to day, and from year to year, ever since he could remember; these toll keepers were appointed by J. B. Coles and the proprietors, including the four defendants.

Mr. Griffin then went on to prove that John B. Coles gave the requisite security to the treasurer of the state, as the act of 1795 required, viz. 4000 pounds, to preserve the bridge in good repair for 60 years, after which it was to be thrown open to the public.  To this end he offered to read from a certified copy of an act passed March 25th, 1808, in which the legislature aver that Coles gave the requisite sureties and entered into the bond.

Mr. Lord objected to reading the averment from the act; the act of 1808 was passed for thee purpose of incorporating the proprietors as a company; but they refused to accept the act.  The bond itself ought to be produced; it was not supposed to be lost; John B. Coles and his assigns ought to show that they gave the bond, and not make the legislature do so.  The act of 1808 varied the franchise considerably from the act of 1795.  John B. Coles himself claimed to be a corporation; the defendants disclaim having anything to do with the act in their plea, therefore they can't invoke this act or any section of it to their assistance; they disclaimed the acceptance of its franchises, or as conferring corporate right on them.

Mr. Jay contended that Coles was bound to execute that bond; he averred that the bond never was executed -- or if it was, it has not been given up -- it is in existence; or if it be lost, it is competent for the defendants to show its loss.  If the grantee refuse to accept a contract, shall the grantor be bound by any part of it?  We deny that the bond was ever in existence; the defendants repudiate the act of the legislature incorporating them; yet they want to make use of the recitals in that charter to show that they have not broken a former act.

Griffin stated that he had searched in the State Treasurer's office, where such bonds are kept, for this bond, but could not find it.  He would swear it if necessary.

Mr. Lord said they must show that the bond once existed; searching for nothing a man might find folly; he would admit that the learned gentlemen had searched all creation, but he would not admit that they ever expected to find the bond.  He couldn't play fast and loose with the case so.

Mr. Butler said that by the particular provisions of the act of 1795, John B. Coles was to construct a bridge within 4 years and to keep it in repair for 60 years.  He averred that by the act of 1797, there is a clear admission that the bond was given.  The present issue was taken on that averment; but by that admission the people, the present plaintiffs are estopped from denying the execution of the bond; the execution of the bridge was admitted and the bond must have been given, for it was a mere incident.  The execution of the bond was a condition precedent to the acquisition of any of the franchises conferred by the act.  Therefore they had a receipt in full.  The filing of this information took place 40 years after the act of 1795, and the defendants had thence till now enjoyed the uninterrupted franchises of the act, and it was rather late to call for the bond to be produced.  The old rule had grown into a maxim, and was well settled in all well regulated courts of law.

'Omnia rite presumuntur.'

The law of 1795 requires that a bond should be given to the people of this state; we produce the admissions of the plaintiffs themselves that we executed and delivered this bond to them, therefore it is not necessary for us to begin and prove that we made the bond.  They say that the act of 1808 varied the character of the original franchise possessed by the proprietors of the bridge; that would have been the effect of it; but we did not accept it.  It is true we cannot make use of that act to enlarge or improve our franchise.  Neither do we wish to use this law as an estoppel, but merely to show that they admit we made the bond; and we contend that this extrinsic collateral admission is competent evidence.  We consider that we here lay a foundation on which the jury must presume that this bond was executed.

Mr. Griffin -- Although it be not necessary to super-add this evidence, as cumulative evidence, yet we can go on and show that John B. Coles made the bond, and Nathaniel Coles was his surety.  Our enemies had possession of that bond.  If I gave my opponent a paper and he lost it, I am not bound to show he had it; it is sufficient to show his admissions that he had it.  Now, if there ever was a case where the slightest secondary evidence was admissible, this case is that case.  The law is settled that you may introduce the admission of a party to the existence of a paper, when you have introduced the preliminary proof which extricates you from the necessity of producing the technical proof.  And if the careless admissions of a party in the street are admissible evidence, why not the admissions of the people of the State of New York.  But no, says my learned opponent, you cannot give what the people said, because the people of the state of New York in their collective capacity have no tongues.  Is it to be admitted in a land of law that the people of this state shall come in and try to turn us out of our rights, because we can't call the dead from their graves, and make the churchyards yawn -- the tomb to open its ponderous jaws.  The bondsman is dead -- the subscribing witness is dead -- all are dead; and because they are dead, we'll expose you to a fine equal to the value of Harlem bridge -- a fine of $50,000.  My adversary says he'll try this cause on its merits.  I'm glad to meet him on the threshold, to fight with the stiletto and not the broadsword.  Fortunately the sovereign people of this state are not like the sovereigns of Turkey, clothed with immunities; I knew of no privileges they have, that are not possessed by the humblest individual.

Mr. G. went on to cite authorities; The State versus Pepicott, proprietors, 10 Massachusetts Reports, 155, it was decided that a resolution of the legislature fixing certain landmarks to a patent right, precluded the people of the state from estoppel.  He also quoted Coke on Littleton, 19 B. where it stated that the rehearsal or preamble of a statute is always to be taken for truth, because it cannot be supposed that a statute made with the authority of the whole realm, the commons, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the king, will state a falsehood.  The act of 1808, already mentioned, was made by an authority equally high; and we give more than the preamble -- we give the section.  He also referred to Dwarris on Statutes, p. 46 and 7 of Law Libel, where it is decided that a statute though repealed may be introduced as evidence to explain another statute or law to which it had any reference.

The judge said he understood that Mr. Lord had contended that the act of 1808 must be considered either as a grant or as an estoppel:  it could not be a grant, because it was not accepted; it could not be considered an estoppel because there was no mutuality.  

Mr. Griffin said that he offered it as cumulative evidence.

Mr. Lord said that all the gentleman had spoken relative to stilettos and broadswords, was a mere episode to the argument; and he was ready to fight him with these weapons or with guns and pistols; but it was intended to provoke a fight elsewhere than the weak place, to make it appear that the weak spot was in the bond; we should see when we got to the bridge whether the weak spot was in the bond or in the bridge.  The act of 1808 was no evidence that the bond ever existed; they may also give evidence of a search for the bond if they once show that the bond existed.  An unaccepted deed cannot be given as evidence of a recital in that deed.  He did not intend to nick-name it, but it was an estoppel -- a recital in a statute cannot be evidence unless it is an estoppel, and this is not an estoppel, because it is not mutual.  That unaccepted charter is not evidence of anything; it cannot be used for one purpose and not for another; the gentleman avoids the ground tat it is an estoppel, but he must go that, or if not it is a nullity.

The judge said that it was conceded it was not to be considered as an estoppel, and also that on proving the loss of the bond, secondary evidence could be introduced; the question was whether an instrument not binding as a contract, could be received as evidence of the admissions of one of the contracting parties.  He considered that the fact of its intending to be delivered and not having been delivered, did not vary the concession in the act -- there was a broad unqualified admission by the Legislature that the bond had been made; the Legislature of the state recognized all the rights and franchises conferred by the set of 1795, as possessed by John B. Coles, and all precedent acts of his contingent on the enjoyment of those rights, must be considered as done.  The law sometimes presumes things to a great extent; sometimes acts of parliament were presumed to have been passed, although they could not be proved.  Under the view of the case as it now stood, he considered it as admissible evidence.

Mr. Lord excepted.

The last section of the act of March 25th, 1808, was then read, as follows: --

'That nothing in this act shall be considered to release John B. Coles and Nathaniel Coles, jun. from a certain bond entered into by them, pursuant to the act of 1795, or from every forfeiture incurred by the said Coles, and for which they are now liable, but all the rights of this state by reason of the said bond, or to the said forfeitures, are to remain in as full force as if this act had not passed.'

Mr. Griffin said that he had disposed of all the issues but two.  One of these was, had Coles kept the bridge in repair since it was built.  He called -- 

Townsend -- Knows the bridge since 1811 -- been kept in good repair -- ample provision has been made for it -- plank and timber plenty was provided.

Cross examined.  --  Is a clerk -- been agent for payment of dividends to proprietors.

Lord. -- Name the dividends, sir, that you have paid, and to whom.

Judge -- Is it one of the questions at issue, whether his company has paid these dividends or not?  Let's look to the record.

Lord -- The record says they had undisturbed enjoyment of franchise by the receipt of the dividends.  Let them show the receipts.

Witness -- Part of the dividends I paid with my own hand -- and part I know from the book -- dividends were paid half-yearly to 12 to 15 stockholders -- there may have been occasional intermissions.  There was a constitution of the Harlem Bridge Company, made by John B. Coles -- it was in writing.  There were 400 shares.

Lord -- If these four defendants are to be punished to the extent of $50,000 how much is the whole bridge worth.

Objected to.

Ellen Mudge examined. -- Known Harley Bridge since 1798 -- resided there -- her father was toll gatherer -- succeeded Willis the 1st toll-gatherer -- my father was toll-gatherer 5 or 6 years -- his name was Weeks -- my husband succeeded my father -- and remained toll-gatherer till 1825 -- John B. Coles appointed my husband and my father -- bridge was kept all that time in good repair -- knows this from observation at all times. 

Peter Hanneberg examined -- Was toll-gatherer at Harlem bridge -- succeeded Mrs. Mudge -- remained 6 months -- put there by the defendants -- went over it every day to see boards were not displaced large enough to admit a horses foot.

Peter Randall examined -- Was toll-gatherer -- appointed by defendants -- remained there till June 1828 -- had plenty of planks, &c. to keep it in repair -- furnished by Coles, Thomson and their associates -- am 46 years old -- known the bridge from a boy -- it always carried me over safe.

Lord -- Do you know of vessels being stopped by the drawer there?

Objected to.

Griffin -- Ask if the drawer was 12 feet wide -- they might have had Noah's ark down there -- not our fault if Noah's ark couldn't get through.

Witness -- Don't know the width of the drawer, or the arch underneath -- never measured it.

Lord -- Has not stone been thrown into the channel under the drawer?

Objected to.

Mr. Butler said if this had been done, it could not vitiate the charter -- those who did so might be indicted for a nuisance.  If the counsel will show that stone was thrown into the channel to such an extent as to appear above the water at low water mark, he can do so.  The defendants were not bound to keep a certain depth of water there.

Mr. Lord said it was competent to inquire whether the opening was 25 feet under water, so as to allow a free passage for navigation.  The opening was for vessels to pass through, and not for carriages to drive through.

Mr. Griffin read the act which authorized John B. Coles, his heirs and assigns, to build a dam of stone all across the Harlem river, so as to stop and throw back the water for mills, &c. and to make a lock 8 ft. wide, and so as to allow vessels to pass through drawing 2 feet of water.  The legislature did not mean that 74 gun ships should pass through there; the gentlemen might say that the drawer ought to have been so constructed as to allow every vessel with fixed standing masts to pass through that has been constructed since the construction of the world.  The depth of water is not an issuable point here -- or whether there is 'a free passage for vessels with fixed standing masts.'

Court adjourned."

Source:  Important Trial -- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR THIS CIRCUIT -- Before Judge Edwards -- Wednesday, May 2, Morning Herald [NY, NY], May 3, 1838, p. 2, cols. 2-4.  

"HARLEM BRIDGE COMPANY.  --  A verdict was rendered in the Circuit Court yesterday, in relation to the Harlem bridge Company, the effect of which, according to the opinion of several lawyers who were in Court when it was delivered, will be to place the bridge at the disposal of the legislature.  It is understood, however, that the Company will appeal from this verdict, and carry the case to the Supreme Court.  --  Jour. Com."

Source:  HARLEM BRIDGE COMPANY, The Evening Post [NY, NY], Oct. 19, 1838, p. 2, col. 3 (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).  

"THE HARLEM BRIDGE CASE. -- It was rumored a day or two since in the city that a party of citizens of Harlem had taken possession of the gates and toll-houses of the Harlem Bridge, and that throughout the day the bridge had been passed by carriages and foot passengers free of toll.  The origin or truth of this rumor we were unable to learn.  

We have frequently been required of, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, in relation to the decision recently delivered on the subject matter above stated.  On making due inquiry relative thereto, we find that the opinion yet remains in the hands of the Court, and cannot be laid before the public for some time to come.  The decision is, in fact, however, a legal declaration that the bridge shall hereafter be made free, or in other words, 'that the proprietors no longer possess the right of exacting tolls from the public.'  --  [Courier.]"

Source:  THE HARLEM BRIDGE CASE, New-York American, Jun. 10, 1839, Vol. XXI, No. 2112, p. 2, col. 3.  

"HARLEM BRIDGE. -- The old Harlem Bridge is now a free bridge.  This happy consummation has been resisted for many years, but by a recent decision of the Court, it is at last opened for the public use.  Attempts may be made to carry it to a higher Court in hopes of reversing the decision -- but we doubt whether it can be successful."

Source:  HARLEM BRIDGE,  Morning Herald [NY, NY], Jun. 19, 1839, p. 2, col. 4.  

"COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS.
June 24, 1840.

Present -- Lieut. Governor, Chancellor, Clark, Edwards, Ely, Furman, Hawkins, Hopkins, Hull, Humphrey, Hunt, Hunter, Lee, H. A. Livingston, Mayard, Nicholas, Peck, Root, Sibley, Skinner, Tallmadge, Tompkins, Van Dyck, Verplanck, Wager, Works. . . . 

Samuel M. Thompson, et al vs., The People, &c., [the Harlem Bridge case.]  Mr. S. Stevens was further heard on the part of the plaintiffs in Error."

Source:  COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS, New-York American, Jun. 25, 1840, Vol. XXII, No. 2225, p. 2, col. 4.  

"PUBLIC MEETING

IN RELATION TO HARLEM BRIDGE. -- In pursuance of public notice, a Meeting of the inhabitants of Westchester and the towns adjacent, was held on Thursday, 20th June, at Feak's Tavern, at Eastchester, when George S. Fox, of Westchester, was appointed President, Ogden Hammond, Vice President, and Daniel W. Coit and Caleb Morgan, Secretaries.

The object of the meeting having been stated by Mr. Harrison, one of the relators [Note:  "Relator" is a legal term meaning a private person at whose relation or on whose behalf an application for a quo warranto or mandamus is filed; the relator appears as one beneficially interested, but the action is maintained on his behalf as, in this case, by the State of New York.] in the suit of the People against the Harlem Bridge Company, on motion of Mr. Baretto, a committee of five were appointed to draft resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting:  Whereupon, William H. Leggett, and Andrew Findlay, of Westchester, Stephen S. Pell, of Pelham, Alexander Banks, of New Rochelle, and Richard Honbe, of Eastchester, were appointed said committee, who, after retiring, reported the following preamble and resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

Whereas, This meeting has been officially informed, that the Haerlem Bridge Company have appealed from the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Errors, and that more expenses will be incurred by the relators in consequence thereof; therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee of fifteen be appointed for the purpose of taking up subscriptions to aid in the defence of the suit now pending against the Haerlem Bridge Company, or any other that may grow out of it, and also to aid in the repair of the road called Cole's Road, adjacent to the Bridge, should the same be adjudged as belonging to the people.  

Resolved, That the money collected be paid into the hands of the relators, to be by them disbursed according to the terms of the foregoing resolution.

Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Relators to defend any individual who shall or may have contributed towards the expense of this litigation, against any suit which the Haerlem Bridge Company may institute for the recovery of tolls; or, if necessary, to proceed against the said Company, or their agents, by indictment or otherwise, for obstructing the highway or extorting tolls.

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting, and of the public, are justly due to the Relators in the above cause, for their firmness and attention to their trust, which has been conducted by them, through circumstances of the most trying and vexatious character, to a favorable issue.

Resolved, That we have undiminished confidence in the justice of our cause, and the wisdom of our judges.

Resolved, That this meeting hereby confirms the powers of the Relators previously granted them, and also authorizes them to confer with the Corporation of New York, and to make any arrangements in relation to the Haerlem Bridge, which they may think necessary for the interest of the inhabitants of this County, or take any other measures needful in the premises.

The following persons were appointed, in pursuance of the first resolution, to collect subscriptions, viz:  -- Ogden Hammond, Wm. H. Leggett, Geo. S. Fox and Gouverneur Morris, of Westchester; Caleb Morgan, of Eastchester; Wm. W. Holmes and James T. Eeils, of New Rochelle; Nathaniel Prime, of Eastchester; Josiah Purdy, of Rye; Thomas Cox, of Mamaroneck; Charles H. Purdy, of White Plains; Benjamin Tripp, of North Castle; Geo. W. Miller, of Bedford; James Townsend, of Pelham; and Joseph H. Anderson, of Harrison.

Whereupon, the meeting adjourned.

GEORGE S. FOX, President.
OGDEN HAMMOND, Vice Pres't.

DANL. W. COIT,      }
                                }  Secretaries.
CALEB MORGAN,  }                          je221t"

Source:  PUBLIC MEETING -- IN RELATION TO HARLEM BRIDGE [Notice], New-York American, Jun. 25, 1839, Vol. XXI, No. 2115, p. 3, col. 7.

"COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS
June 22, 1840.

Ordered, that the Court will take up the case of Charles Stearns vs. the people of the state of New York, next after hearing of the Harlem bridge case. . . ." 

Source:  COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS -- June 22, 1840, Albany Journal, Jun. 24, 1840, Vol. 11, No. 3204, p 2, col. 3.  

"The Harlem Bridge case, it is said, will not be decided by the Chancellor at this term."

Source:  [Untitled], New York Express, Aug. 24, 1840, Vol. 4, No. 1175, p. 2, col. 5.  

"COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS -- Now sitting at Saratoga Springs.
Thursday, August 20. . . . 

Thompson and others vs. The People, ex. rel. Taylor and others; (Harlem Bridge Case.) -- Decision postponed three weeks. . . ."

Source:  COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS, New-York American, Aug. 27, 1840, p. 2, col. 5.  

"COURT OF ERRORS. -- In addition to the decisions of the Court of Errors on Saturday, published in our Postcript of yesterday, we find the following . . . 

Samuel M. Thompson and others vs. the People ex rel. Thomas C. Taylor and others.  Harlem bridge case.  Error from supreme court.  The Chancellor, Messrs. Verplanck, Edwards, Furman, Root, Lt. Governor, Nicholas and Maynard.  The judgment of the supreme court was reversed.  Affirmance 10, Reversal 11.  Repleader awarded, the plaintiffs to reply to the plea of the defendants do novo.  Adjourned."  

Source:  COURT OF ERRORS, New-York American, Dec. 28, 1840, p. 2, col. 7.  

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."