Pelham's 19th Century Boundary Dispute with New Rochelle

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."

As early as the 1860s, the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle began battling over the boundary between the two in the area nearest Long Island Sound.  There was an area of about fifty acres that both towns claimed.  A number of homes stood on the disputed land and New Rochelle collected property taxes on the properties despite the fact that Pelham claimed that the land was within the Town of Pelham based on a boundary set by surveyor Captain Abraham Bond and reflected in a filed map dated 1711 and reaffirmed in a surveyor's map of the Town of Pelham dated 1798 prepared by James Davenport.

In 1897, Town of Pelham Supervisor John M. Shinn convinced the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to reaffirm the boundary reflected in the maps dated 1711 and 1798.  This, of course, effectively placed the disputed lands within the Town of Pelham, thereby permitting Pelham to collect real estate taxes on the properties within the disputed 50-acre tract.

A major lawsuit followed.  That lawsuit took several years to resolve with the courts eventually siding with Pelham and adjudging the boundary consistent with the 1711 and 1798 maps, thereby finding the disputed 50-acre tract to be within Pelham.  

Still, the dispute simmered.  It was not until 1927 when the Westchester County Board of Supervisors passed a law defining the boundary by metes and bounds that, once again, followed the boundary set by the 1711 and 1798 maps and seemed consistent with the boundary as shown in a map of the area published by John F. Fairchild in 1898.

I have written about this dispute on numerous occasions.  For examples, see:

Mon., May 11, 2015 1798:  Surveyor's Map of the Town of Pelham And Copy of 1711 Map of Pelham Border with New Rochelle.  

Tue., Feb. 10, 2009:  Another Article About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Mon., Sep. 17, 2007:  Articles About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Thu., Mar. 16, 2006:  1869 New York Herald Article About Pelham's Boundary Dispute With New Rochelle.

In 1899, in the midst of the lawsuit that eventually settled the matter and shortly after a temporary legal setback for the Town of Pelham, the Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle had the County Clerk enter into the minutes of the Annual Session of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester much of the legal material from the lawsuit that reflected New Rochelle's temporary victory.  Today's Historic Pelham history article transcribes that material for future research purposes.

Image of Original Surveyor's Map by James Davenport Entitled "Town of Pelham

West Chester County Scale Twenty Chains to an Inch James

Davenport. Surveyor. 22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Image of Copy of James Davenport Surveyor's Map Entitled 

"Town of Pelham West Chester County Scale Twenty Chains to

an Inch James Davenport. Surveyor. 22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Copy of 1711 Bond Map Drawn by James Davenport Entitled

"Map of the Town of New Rochelle, Westchester County. Drawn from

an ancient map, which was surveyed by Abraham Bond in 1711,

by Jas. Davenport."  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"Annual Session OF THE Board of Supervisors, Westchester County, N. Y. 1898-'99
-----
FRIDAY, MARCH 10th, 1899.

Board met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Secor in the chair and a quorum of members present. . . . 

Mr. Shinn presented the following affidavit, writ of prohibition and order of the court:

SUPREME COURT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

State of New York, City and County of New York } ss.

John M. Shinn being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I.  That he is the supervisor of the town of Pelham, a municipal corporation, in the county of Westchester and state of New York, and has been such at all the times mentioned herein.

II.  That heretofore and on or about March 16th, 1898, the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County upon proceedings duly instituted on behalf of the Town of Pelham under Section 36 of the County Law, and after hearing testimony on behalf of the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle and upon a report of its Judiciary Committee, passed the following act.

'AN ACT to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof, and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898, at least two-thirds of all the members elected thereto being present, and voting therefor, 28 votes being cast in favor of and 1 vote against its passage, do enact as follows:

'Section 1.  Whereas, the boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle has been in dispute and application having been duly made in accordance with the statute to have such boundary line located and defined.

'Section 2.  Therefore, resolved, that the disputed portion of said boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle shall be, and the same is hereby fixed, located, established and defined as follows:

'Beginning at its northern point at the centre of the Hutchinson River, seventy three feet south of the centre of the bridge known as the Archer Bridge, and running thence southerly through or about the north end of the stone wall at the northeast corner of the Jacob Heller property, marked 'o' upon a map, and through the intersection of the old stone wall forming the boundary line between the properties of B. F. Corlies, Sycamore Park and others, with the stone wall marking the southerly side of the old Boston Post Road, said intersection of said straight line with the line surveyed by Schuyler & Crosby as the town line, south of the angle at the northerly edge of the big swamp as shown upon map No. 615 on file in the office of the Register of Westchester County, said intersection point being marked 'C' upon annexed map.

'The said dividing line between the towns as herein described, being the same, as near as can be determined, as shown upon a map made by Captain Bond in the year 1811, and as laid down on a copy of said map made by John Davenport in 1798, and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor.

III.  This act shall take effect immediately.'

That said Board of Supervisors thereafter and on or about April 1st, 1898, duly adjourned sine die.  

Section 3.  That thereafter the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County composed of the newly elected supervisors of the several towns and cities in said county, elected in the Spring election of 1898, met on or about April 15th, 1898 pursuant to a call for a special meeting:  that at said meeting Michael J. Dillon, the newly elected supervisor from the town of New Rochelle, introduced the following proposed resolution or act 'An act or resolution to repeal:

'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.'

That on or about April 22nd, 1898 at a subsequent meeting of said board, said resolution was submitted to a vote of the board against the objection and protest of deponent as supervisor of the Town of Pelham in the following words:

'That the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board and that the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York, and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as establshe by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established.'

V.  That said board duly convened pursuant to said order and writ on May 31st, 1898, and said resolution of April 22nd, 1898 was declared duly rejected.  That at said meeting Michael J. Dillon, supervisor of New Rochelle, moved 'that the vote by which the repeal resolution and act relating to the boundary line between the Towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, declared adopted at a meeting of this board held on April 22nd, 1898 be reconsidered, and that the same lay over and be acted upon at the next special or regular meeting of this board.'  Deponent as supervisor of the Town of Pelham objected and raised the following point of order 'that the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board, and the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as established by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established' also 'that this board having been called together for a certain specific purpose by a writ issued out of the Supreme Court and that purposes having been accomplished any further business transacted by this board would be illegal and void.'  The chairman decided to admit the motion made by said Michael J. Dillon.

VI.  That a special meeting of the said board has been called for Thursday, July 14th at 10.30 a.m. at White Plains at which certain specified business will be considered as also 'such other and further business as may come or be brought before the meeting.'  That deponent is informed and verily believes that the said motion of said Michael J. Dillon offered on May 31st, 1898 on behalf of the Town of New Rochelle a municipal corporation will be acted upon by said board, and said motion carried.

VII.  That the said board has no jurisdiction to entertain said Dillon motion as proceedings by the Town of New Rochelle to change disputed boundary line must be taken according to the provisions of Section 36 of the County Law; that the board having made a determination upon disputed facts, on a judicial hearing, the matter became res judicata; that the said order of the court allowing a writ of peremptory mandamus to issue, is also conclusive upon the said board on the questions of procedure and jurisdiction and the facts set forth in said order.

VIII.  That adequate relief can only be had by writ of prohibition, restraining the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County from further proceeding in this matter.

IX.  That no previous or other application has been made for a writ of prohibition thereon to any judge or court.

Wherefore, the Town of Pelham prays that a writ of prohibition be issued out of this court directed to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester and to the Town of New Rochelle, commanding the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to refrain and desist from any further action in the premises.

JOHN M. SHINN, 
Supervisor, Town of Pelham.

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 13th day of July, 1898, }  ss.

ROBERT A. STEWART, 
Notary Public 221,
New York County.

At a Special Term of the Supreme Court held in and for the County of Westchester at the County Court House in the Village of White Plains on the 21st day of May, 1898.

Present Hon. Jackson O. Dykman, Justice.

EXHIBIT A.

Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The People of the State of New York on the relation of John M. Shinn as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham

-  against  -

Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

On reading and filing the affidavit of John M. Shinn, as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham, verified the 26th day of April, 1898, and the notice of motion therein dated the 26th day of April, 1898, of an application for a writ of peremptory mandamus with proof of due service thereof upon all of the defendants herein, and upon all the proceedings had herein, and it appearing from said papers that the relator is the Supervisor of the Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York; that on proceedings heretofore instituted by the Town of Pelham under Section 36 of the County Law relating to the establishment of disputed boundary lines between Towns, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester on or about March 16th, 1898, passed an act entitled

'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Sections 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto by the Board of Supervisors of the County of of Westchester at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898 at least two-thirds of all the members elected thereto, being present, and voting therefor, 28 votes being cast in favor of and 1 vote against its passage, do enact as follows:

'Section 1.  Whereas the boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle has been in dispute and application having been duly made in accordance with the statute to have such boundary located and defined.

'Section 2.  Therefore, resolved, that the disputed portion of said boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle shall be and the same is hereby fixed, located established and defined as follows:

'Beginning at its northern point at the centre of the Hutchinson River, seventy-three feet south of the centre of the bridge known as the Archer Bridge, and running thence southerly through or about the north end of the stone wall at the northeast corner of the Jacob Heller property, marked 'O' upon a map, and through the intersection of the old stone wall forming the boundary line between the properties of B. F. Corlies, Sycamore Park and others, with the stone wall marking the southerly side of the old Boston Post Road, said intersection of said straight line with the line surveyed by Schuyler & Crosby as the Town Line, south of the angle at the northerly edge of the big swamp as shown on map No. 615 on file in the office of the Register of Westchester County, said intersection point being marked 'C' upon annexed map.

'The said dividing line between the towns as herein described being the same as near as can be determined as shown upon a map made by Captain Bond, in the year 1811 and as laid down on a copy of said map made by John Davenport in 1798 and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and surveyor.

'Section 3.  This act shall take effect immediately.'

That thereafter said board adjourned; that thereafter and on or about April 15th, 1898 the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County composed of supervisors from the different cities and towns of the County of Westchester elected in the Spring election of 1898, met in special meeting; that at said meeting the Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, Michael J. Dillon, offered the following resolution and proposed act, entitled 'An Act or resolution to appeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' which resolution was laid upon the table.

That on or about April 22nd, 1898 said resolution and proposed act was taken from the table and submitted to a vote of the said Board of Supervisors by the chairman thereof, Chauncey T. Secor, against the objection and protest of the relator in the following words:

'That the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board and that the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York, and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as established by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established.'

That said resolution received an affirmative vote of 16 supervisors and a negative vote of 12; that said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman thereupon declared said resolution and act carried and thereafter Edwin R. Hopkins as clerk of said board, thereupon entered said decision in his minutes.  That said Chauncey T. Secor thereupon, upon motion made, appointed a committee to pass upon the question of the alleged disputed boundary line between said Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, and the said clerk entered said resolution and appointment in his minutes of said board meeting.  That the said Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester consists, and on April 15th and 22nd, 1898, did consist of 22 members.  That by Section 17 of the County Law it is provided that every act or resolution of the Board of Supervisors shall require for its passage the assent of a majority of the supervisors elected.  That said alleged act or resolution of April 22nd required for its passage the affirmative vote of 17 supervisors; that the aforesaid decision of said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman was contrary to the law in such cases made and provided, and was illegal and wrong; that he should have declared such resolution or act to appeal lost, and rejected; and that the motion to appoint a committee upon the question of the alleged disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle should not have been entertained by said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman, nor should he have appointed a committee thereunder.  That said unlawful and illegal acts of said Chauncey T. Secor caused said Edwin R. Hopkinsas Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to enter upon the minutes of the meetings of said board of April 15th and 22nd, 1898 a record of wrongful and illegal acts.

And after hearing G. K. Heath, Esq., in Support of the motion and J. Addison Young, Esq. in opposition theretof,

Now on motion of Henry G. K. Heath, Esq., attorney for the relator, 


It is ordered that a Peremptory writ of mandamus forthwith issue out of and under the seal of this court directed to Chauncey T. Secor as chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County; to Edwin R. Hopkins as clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and to The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, requiring said Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to declare lost and rejected the proposed resolution or act offered by Michael J. Dillon as supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, entitled 'An act or resolution to repeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' which proposed resolution or act was submitted to the vote of the Board of supervisors of Westchester County on April 22nd, 1898; and further to declare out of order a certain resolution offered at the meeting of said board on April 22nd, 1898, empowering said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman to appoint a committee to pass upon the question of the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, and to revoke said appointment of said committee made thereunder.  And requiring said Edwin R. Hopkinis as clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to correct the minutes of the meeting of said board on April 22nd, 1898, so that it shall appear that said resolution offered by Michael J. Dillon on April 16th, 1898, to repeal the act of March 16th, 1898, and which was submitted to the vote of the Board of Supervisors on April 22nd, 1898, was lost and rejected.  That the motion or resolution to appoint a committee to pass upon the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle offered on April 22, 1898, was declared out of order by the chairman of this board, and that no committee was appointed thereunder.

And requiring you, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, to forthwith convene at the County Court House in the village of White Plains to take such proceedings as may be necessary to carry into effect the order of this court as contained in said writ of peremptory mandamus to be issued thereunder.

It is further ordered that the relator recover from the defendants the sum of ten dollars costs of these proceedings.

Enter.

J. O. DYKMAN, J. S. C.

Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The People of the State of New York on the relation of John M. Shinn as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham

--  against  --

Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

EXHIBIT B

The People of the State of New York to Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County; to Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County:

Whereas the relator as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham has upon due notice to all of the defendants herein made application to this court at a special term thereof, held in and for the County of Westchester, for a writ of Peremptory Mandamus directed to the defendants herein to have said defendants perform their several duties as prescribed by law, and

Whereas this Court has by order duly made and entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of Westchester on the 21st day of May, 1898, ordered and directed that a writ of peremptory Mandamus issue directed to the defendants as prayed for in the application of the relator herein.

Now therefore, we being willing that full and speedy justice be done in your behalf,

Command you and each of you firmly enjoying that immediately upon the receipt of this writ that 

You the said Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to declare lost and rejected the proposed resolution or act offered by Michael J. Dillon as Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle entitled 'An act or resolution to repeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.

Which proposed resolution or act was submitted to the vote of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County on April 22nd, 1898, and that you declare out of order a certain resolution offered on said April 22nd, 1898, empowering you as chairman to appoint a committee to pass upon the question of the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle and that you revoke the appointment of such committee made under the foregoing resolution.

That you Edwin R. Hopkins, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County correct the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County of April 22nd, 1898, so that it shall appear that said resolution offered by Michael J. Dillon on April 15th, 1898, to repeal the act of March 16, 1898, was lost and rejected.  That the motion to appoint a committee to pass upon the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle offered on April 22nd, 1898, was declared out of order by the chairman of said board, and that no committee was appointed thereunder.

And that you The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County forwith convene at the County Court House in the village of White Plains to take such proceedings as may be necessary to carry into effect the mandate of this court as provided in this writ.

LEVERETT F. CRUMB, 
(Westchester Couonty Seal)     Clerk.

The People of the State of New York 
to
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, and to the Town of New Rochelle.

Whereas, The Town of Pelham in the County of Westchester, by John M. Shinn, its supervisor has presented to the supreme court of the state of New York, on the 13th day of July, 1898, the fact upon affidavit that the board of supervisors of Westchester County, without jurisdiction and legal authority, are about to and threaten to entertain and pass a motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, supervisor of the town of New Rochelle, which would set aside and repeal an act of said board, duly passed March 16th, 1898, fixing the disputed boundary lines between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, after having heard all parties interested upon proceedings instituted to fix and determine such disputed boundary line pursuant to Section 86, of the county law.

Wherefore, The Town of Pelham, has prayed relief of our court and our writ of prohibition in that behalf, we therefore being willing that the laws of our state should be observed, do command youo that you desist and refrain from taking any action upon a certain proposed resolution or motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, as supervisor of the town of New Rochelle, May 31st, 1898, to reconsider a vote by which the repeal resolution and act, relating to the boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham Manor [sic], was declared adopted at a meeting of this board, and that said board desist and refrain from taking action of any nature tending to affect the act of March 16th, 1898, passed by said board, fixing the disputed boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and that you show cause before a special term of the supreme court, of the state of New York, at a special term thereof to be held at the county court house, in the village of White Plains, Westchester County, on the 23rd day of July, 1898, at ten o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why you should not be absolutely restrained from any further proceeding in respect to said act of March 16th, 1898, which fixed and determined the disputed boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and from all and any action tending in any manner to effect, limit or avoid said act of March 16th, 1898.

Witness, Hon. William D. Dickey, justice of the supreme court, in and for the second judicial department, at the county court house, in the city of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and county of Kings, this 13th day of July, 1895.

By the Court,
[SEAL.]     LEVERETT F. CRUMB, Clerk.

HENRY G. K. HEATH, 
Attorney for Relator, 
Office and P. O. Address,
No. 6, Union Avenue,
New Rochelle, N. Y.

At a special term of the supreme court, held in and for the second judicial department, at the county court house, in the city of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and county of Kings, on the 13th day of July 1898.

Present, Hon. William D. Dickey, Justice.

The People of the State of New York, on the Relation of the Town of Pelham,

against,

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, and the town of New Rochelle.

On reading and filing the petition of John M. Shinn, Supervisor of the town of Pelham, verified July 13th, 1898, and on motion of Henry G. Heath, attorney for said petitioner.

It is ordered that a writ of prohibition issue out of this court, to the board of supervisors of Westchester County, and to the town of New Rochelle, commanding the said board of supervisors of Westchester County, to desist and refrain from taking any action upon a certain proposed resolution or motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, as supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, on May 31st, 1898, to reconsider a vote by which the repeal resolution and act, relating to the boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, was declared adopted at a meeting of said board, held on April 22nd, 1898, and that the same lay over and be acted upon at the next special or regular meeting of this board, and that said board desist and refrain from taking any action of any nature tending to affect the act of March 16th, 1898, passed by said board, fixing the disputed boundary lie between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and that said writ be returnable on the 23rd day of July next, at the opening of the court on that day, at a special term of this supreme court to be held in the county court house in the village of White Plains, Westchester County.

Enter in Westchester Co.

Enter

WILLIAM D. DICKEY,
J. S. C.

Granted July 13, 1898.
WM. P. GREEST,
Clerk.

Mr. Dillon presented the following order of the court 'denying motion for writ of prohibition' and moved that all papers in the case be entered upon the minutes, which motion was declared carried:

At a special term of the supreme court held in the county court house, in White Plains, on the 23d day of July, 1898.

Present -- Hon. Martin J. Keogh, Justice.

The People of the State of New York, on the relation of John M. Shinn, as Supervisor of the town of Pelham

against

Chauncey T. Secor, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, and the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

The defendant herein, the board of supervisors of Westchester County, having by their counsel appeared when the writ of prohibition granted herein was returnable and filed their separate return thereto, and the town of New Rochelle also having appeared by its counsel and filed a return to said writ of prohibition.  Now, after reading and filing the affidavit upon which the writ of prohibition was granted and the order for said writ of prohibition, and the writ of prohibition bearing date July 13th, 1898, and after reading and filing the said returns of said writ made as aforesaid, that after hearing Henry G. K. Heath, Esq., in support of a motion for a permanent order or writ of prohibition, in the above entitled proceedings, and J. Addison Young, the attorney for the defendants, aforesaid, in opposition to said motion.

It is ordered and adjudged, that said motion be and the same hereby is denied, and that the relator is not entitled to a writ of prohibition absolute, and that his application therefore be and the same hereby is denied.

It is further ordered that the said defendants recover from the said relator, the sum of ten ($10) dollars costs on this motion.

MARTIN J. KEOGH,
Justice.

State of New York, Office of the County Clerk of Westchester County. } ss.:

I have compared the preceding with the original order denying motion, filed in this office on the 10th day of September, 1898, and do hereby certify the same to be a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my official seal this 10th day of March, 1899.

(Seal) 

LEVERETT F. CRUMB,
County Clerk of Westchester Co. . . . 

 Mr. Dillon moved a reconsideration of the vote just taken on the resolution presented by him, which motion was declared lost.

Mr. Dillon offered the following act:

An act to repeal an act entitled, 'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, in the county of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the county of Westchester, at a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.'

Section 1.  The act passed by the board of supervisors of Westchester County, on March 16th, 1898, entitled, 'An act, to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, in the county of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the board of supervisors of the county of Westchester, at a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' is hereby repealed.

(Continued on fourth page.)

Board of Supervisors.
-----
(Continued from first page.)

Section 2.  This act shall take effect immediately.

Laid over. . . ."

Source:  Annual Session OF THE Board of Supervisors, Westchester County, N. Y. 1898-'99, The Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Mar. 18, 1899, Vol. LIV, No. 52, p. 1, cols. 4-8 & p. 4, col. 1.

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."

1798 Surveyor's Map of the Town of Pelham And Copy of 1711 Map of Pelham Border with New Rochelle

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."

With each passing day, more and more material of historical significance regarding the Town of Pelham becomes easily available online.  Each such item sheds a little more light on the history of our Town.  

Recently a surveyor's map of the Town of Pelham completed on February 22, 1798 that once could be seen only by visiting the New York State Archives has become easily available in high resolution online as part of "The Digital Collections:  A Gateway to Materials Held by the New York State Archives, New York State Museum & New York State Library."  The map is entitled "Town of Pelham West Chester County Scale Twenty Chains to an Inch James Davenport.  Surveyor.  22nd February 1798."  It is an interesting map.  Far more interesting than the map, however, is its use in a subsequent boundary dispute of note and references to it in a related litigation.  The story regarding creation of the map is detailed below after an analysis of the map.  Additionally, a second map that is a copy of a 1711 map of the boundary line between Pelham and New Rochelle is addressed in the same context below.   

Analysis of the 1798 Davenport Map and its More Legible Copy

The original map is in very poor condition.  The State, however, also has available a newer identical copy of the map that is in excellent condition.  Both are available in high resolution online.  Below I have included low resolution images of the original map and the copy of the map.  Beneath each is a citation to its source and a link to the high resolution digital image that may be magnified to very, very high resolution.

Low Resolution Image

of Original Surveyor's Map Entitled

"Town of Pelham West Chester County

Scale Twenty Chains to an Inch

James Davenport.  Surveyor.  22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Link to Access High Resolution

Digital Image of the Map.  Occasionally the Page

Does Not Load Correctly within the Flash Plug-in

Within the Chrome and Explorer Browsers.  It May

Look as Though the Image Failed to Load and the

Page is Blank.  Usually, You Simply Have to Scroll

Down the Screen and the Map Will Display Lower

on the Seemingly Blank Page.

Low Resolution Image

of Copy of Surveyor's Map Entitled

"Town of Pelham West Chester County

Scale Twenty Chains to an Inch

James Davenport.  Surveyor.  22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Link to Access High Resolution

Digital Image of the Map.  Occasionally the Page

Does Not Load Correctly within the Flash Plug-in

Within the Chrome and Explorer Browsers.  It May

Look as Though the Image Failed to Load and the

Page is Blank.  Usually, You Simply Have to Scroll

Down the Screen and the Map Will Display Lower

on the Seemingly Blank Page.

On March 7, 1788, the New York State legislature enacted a statute creating a number of towns in Westchester County including the Town of Pelham. Thus, for the first time, the Town of Pelham existed and encompassed an area including much of today's Pelham Bay Park and all of City Island in the Bronx as well as all lands within today's Town of Pelham.  The surveyor's map by James Davenport that is the subject of today's posting was created barely a decade after the creation of the town from what previously was known as the Manor of Pelham.  The map is significant because it purports to show the entire boundary between Pelham and New Rochelle.  It should be noted that the map shows the boundary with New Rochelle as lying well northeast of the tip of Henderson Island (today's Hunter's Island).

The map is fascinating for a host of reasons.  For example, it shows the paucity of colonial roadways that traversed the Town at the end of the 18th century.  Every such road that cut across Pelham at that time followed ancient Native American pathways that long had crossed the land.

Near the upper portion of the map is the road labeled "Boston Post Road."  It is a reference to the old Boston Post Road that we know today as Colonial Avenue.  On the map, the roadway is shown crossing the Hutchinson River at a point that was known as the first location above Eastchester Bay where the Hutchinson River could be easily forded.  Today, that is the location where traffic passes under the Hutchinson River Parkway overpass from Colonial Avenue onto Sandford Boulevard when traveling toward the City of Mount Vernon.

The roadway that extends southward from "Boston Post Road" is marked on the map as the "Road from the foot of the Neck out to the Post Road."  We know part of that road today as a combination of today's Wolfs Lane and today's Split Rock Road.  In fact, there is a little "jog" in the upper part of the road that seems to be where today's Wolfs Lane ends at the Boston Turnpike (today's Boston Post Road which had not yet been built at the time of this map) and where today's Split Rock Road picks up on the other side of today's Boston Post Road.

Today, Split Rock Road ends at the New York City boundary, beyond which lies I-95 (the New England Thruway) and, beyond that, today's Pelham Bay Park.  At the time this map was created, the portion of the "Road from the foot of the Neck out to the Post Road" that we know today as Split Rock Road continued uninterrupted from the end of today's Wolfs Lane across the area traversed by the New England Thruway, past Split Rock, and along a route through today's Split Rock Golf course until it arrived at today's Shore Road near the parking lot of the Pelham Bay and Split Rock Golf Course Clubhouse.

At that point, the roadway split.  The main roadway continued onto Pelham Neck toward the area marked on this map as "Rodman's Point."  The portion of the roadway that led onto Pelham Neck very roughly followed the course of today's Orchard Beach Road and Park Drive down onto the Neck.  At the point where the roadway split, the roadway that intersected with the roadway toward Pelham Neck is marked on this map as the "Road to New Rochelle Landing."  This is the road that we know today as "Shore Road."  If you follow the course of that roadway toward New Rochelle on this map, you will see that it crosses a little stream across from "Hendersons Isl."  That stream is the low-lying area near the Pelham Manor / New York City border so familiar to those of us today who travel along Shore Road that constantly floods after heavy rains.

Hendersons Island and the Twin Islands reflected at the location are known today as Hunter's Island and the Twin Islands.  During the 20th century Hunter's Islland (formerly Hendersons Island) was connected to the mainland as part of a Robert Moses project to create today's Orchard Beach.  The island was known at that time as Henderson's Island because it was owned by Alexander Henderson.  I have written extensively about Alexander Henderson, his son William Henderson, and Henderson Island.  See, e.g.:

Thu., Apr. 06, 2006:  Alexander Bampfield Henderson: "Lone Lord of the Isle."

Fri., Mar. 31, 2006:  Text of 1804 Will of Alexander Henderson, Owner of the Island Later Known as Hunter's Island.

Fri., Feb. 24, 2006:  Notice of Settlement of the Estate of Alexander Henderson of Pelham in 1805.  

Fri., Aug. 17, 2007:  Advertisement Offering Alexander Henderson's Island Estate To Let Published in 1807.

Wed., Dec. 14, 2005:  New Information About John Hunter's Acquisition of Hunter's Island in the Manor of Pelham.

Another interesting feature of this surveyor's map by James Davenport relating to Henderson Island is that it depicts a "Causeway between the Isl. & Main" showing that a causeway existed during the time Alexander Henderson owned the island before it was sold to John Hunter in about 1812.  The causeway appears to have stood where John Hunter's stone causeway later stood after John Hunter bought the island and built his famed mansion.

There is a final interesting point to be made about the map.  At the time James Davenport surveyed the area and created his map, the only road on Pelham Neck was the one that extended down the Neck toward Rodman's Point.  No effort yet had been made to build the bridge later known as Pelham Bridge across Eastchester Bay.  Eastchester Bay is depicted on the Davenport map as "Bay between Westchester [meaning the Village of Westchester that was centered near today's Westchester Square in the Bronx] and Pelham."

The Davenport Map of the Town of Pelham and its excellent copy are held in the collections of the New York State Archives.  The "Identifier" number of the original map is NYSA_A0273-78-404.  The Identifier number of the copy of the map is NYSA_A0273-78-404A.  

The Pelham / New Rochelle Boundary Dispute and a Copy of the 1711 Bond Map

The Town of Pelham and the Town (later City) of New Rochelle battled for many, many years over where the boundary line that extended from Long Island Sound onto the mainland should be located.  I have written about this extensive dispute and its resolution on numerous occasions.  See:

Thu., Mar. 16, 2006:  1869 New York Herald Article About Pelham's Boundary Dispute with New Rochelle.

Mon., Sep. 17, 2007:  Articles About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Tue., Feb. 10, 2009:  Another Article About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Two maps created by surveyor James Davenport have figured in different aspects of these extensive boundary disputes including the map analyzed above.  Another map created by James Davenport that is also in the collections of the New York State Archives that likewise figured in the disputes is a copy of a map by "Captain Bond" created in 1711 that depicted the boundary line between Pelham and New Rochelle.  A low resolution image of that map, together with a citation to its source and link to a high resolution image of the map appears immediately below.

Low Resolution Image

of Copy of Surveyor's Map Entitled

"Map of the Town of New Rochelle, Westchester
County. Drawn from an ancient map, which was
surveyed by Abraham Bond in 1711, by Jas. Davenport."

NOTE:  Click on Link to Access High Resolution

Digital Image of the Map.  Occasionally the Page

Does Not Load Correctly within the Flash Plug-in

Within the Chrome and Explorer Browsers.  It May

Look as Though the Image Failed to Load and the

Page is Blank.  Usually, You Simply Have to Scroll

Down the Screen and the Map Will Display Lower

on the Seemingly Blank Page.

Note that, unlike the 1798 Davenport map already discussed above, this copy of Captain Bond's 1711 survey seems to show Pelham's boundary with New Rochelle NOT as though it existed well northeast of Henderson Island (today's Hunter's Island) like the other map but, instead, as though the boundary intersected the tip of Henderson Island shown in the extreme lower left of the copy of the 1711 map.  Clearly there would seem to be a major difference in the placement of the Pelham / New Rochelle boundary on the two maps.

In his book on the history of Pelham published in 1946, Lockwood Barr addressed the boundary dispute between Pelham and New Rochelle in which the Davenport copy of Captain Bond's map was used.  In later litigation regarding the boundary, it was noted that at the time the boundary was settled in 1870, the surveyors involved apparently were not aware of the Davenport map of the Town of Pelham surveyed on February 22, 1798.  Lockwood Barr wrote about the disputes as follows:

 "PELHAM--NEW ROCHELLE BOUNDARY LINE 

The boundary line between the Town of Pelham and the City of New Rochelle has been shifted several times, from its original location. When John Pell, in 1689, sold to Jacob Leisler the 6,100 acres--which tract is now New Rochell--the boundary line started at a point in the Hutchinson River at the northern tip of the Manor of Pelham, ran south to a monument in the Great Swamp, now in the Pelham Country Club, just north of the Branch Line of the New Haven Railroad. Thence the line ran in a southeasterly direction to ". . . a certain White Oak Tree, standing at High water mark on the South end of Hog Island." (Now Travers Island.) 

This White Oak tree has long since vanished, but evidences of this original line, from the monument in the Great Swamp to the White Oak tree, may still be traced on old maps showing property lines in New Rochelle, and by remnants of stone walls. A section of one of these old stone walls is in the woods directly opposite the present entrance gate of The Priory. 

The original line from the monument in the Hutchinson River to the monument in the Great Swamp was shifted eastward 200 feet more or less. Where this new line then intersected the original line, from the monument in the Great Swamp to the White Oak, a new monument was set in the Swamp, south and east of the original monument. At this new monument in the Swamp an angle was turned, swinging the line from there to the Sound, south and eastward. This new line ended at the Sound, bisecting Travers Island, and a monument was set at the Water several hundred feet north and east of where stood the old White Oak on the South End of the Island. At that time, two other monuments were set on Travers Island. That placed back into Pelham Manor tracts which had been considered to lie in New Rochelle. One such piece is the corner of the property of Christ Church, at the corner of Pelhamdale and the Shore Road. 

Since the several shifts which have been made in this boundary line have not elsewhere been compiled--a summary is herewith presented. 

The present line was established by an Act of the New York Legislature, Chapter 782, of the laws of 1870, and its location fixed by Act of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, passed March 16, 1898, and is shown on Map 1332 filed July 18, 1898, in the Office of the Recorder. The boundary dispute was again brought up before the Board of Supervisors and fixed November 1927 . (See Appendix to Laws of 1929, page 1773, Sec. A.) 

The original boundary line was established on Sept. 20, 1689, when Jacob Leisler bought from Sir John Pell, 2nd Lord, the 6,100 acres of land as a home for the French Huguenot refugees. The line in the deed was as follows: 'Beginning at the West of a certain White Oak Tree marked on all four sides, standing at High water mark on the South end of' Hog Neck, by shoals harbor and runs (thence) northwesterly through the great fresh water Meadow lying between the Road (the old Post Road now Colonial) and the Sound, and from the north side of said Meadow where the said line crosses said Meadow to run thence due North to Bronckes river, where is the west division line between John Pell's and the aforesaid tract. . .'

The earliest known map showing that boundary line between the Manor of Pelham and New Rochelle bears the title 'Drawn from an Ancient Map which was Surveyed by Abraham Bond in the year of the Lord 1711. Laid down 20 Chains to the Inch--Drawn by James Davenport.' 

There is also a map entitled Town of Pelham, West Chester County. James Davenport, surveyor, February 22, 1798, which map purports to show Capt. Bond's line between New Rochelle and the Town of Pelham, the latter erected in 1788 when the County was divided into Townships. 

From the monument in the Hutchinson River, Capt. Bond's Line ran due south by the magnetic compass to the monument in the swamp in the Pelham Country Club. At the monument, Capt. Bond's line bent south 27° east and ran to the Sound--presumably to the 'White Oak Tree marked on all four sides, standing at High Water mark on the South end of Hog Island.' 

There are several undated maps showing Pelham and New Rochelle--being pages from books of real estate maps. Some of these maps can be dated after 1848 , for they show the main line of the New Haven Railroad, but surveyed before 1873, since they do not show the Harlem Branch Line. These maps show the boundary line clearly. 

The Shore Road has been widened and shifted since these maps were drawn. What is now Pelhamdale Avenue was shown on these maps as a country lane beginning in New Rochelle, running north-westerly for a short distance into Pelham, then curving back into New Rochelle, and coming to a dead end south of the present Hillcrest. These maps show clearly a small triangular tract in New Rochelle, bounded on the south by the Shore Road, on the east by what was then Pelhamdale, and on the third side by Christ Church property in Pelham. 

Supporting these maps there is the fact that John Hunter and his wife, Anne, owned a tract extending several hundred feet easterly from the Christ Church, along and north of the Shore Road (except the Kemble-Emmet tract on the Shore Road). This Hunter tract was subsequently owned by their son, H. G. Hunter. There is a map of this tract dated 1891, bearing the name of Anne M. Hunter, and a subsequent undated revised map bearing the name of her son, H. G. Hunter--the latter map being a tracing of the first. Neither of these two maps shows the present boundary line between Pelham and New Rochelle. Both of them show this triangular tract of land as being west of Pelhamdale Avenue. 

This triangular tract was sold to Nanette Ann Bolton of The Priory by John and Anne Hunter, March 27, 1867, and the deed is recorded Liber 640, p. 54. The tract is described as follows: 'All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of New Rochelle, in the County of Westchester, State of New York, being a small triangular shaped piece of land lying northeasterly and a short distance from the stone building formerly used for a school house, but now an Episcopal Parsonage, bounded southeasterly on one side by Pelham Road, northeasterly on one side by land now or late of Elbert Roosevelt, and westerly on the other side by land now or formerly owned by said Nanette Anne Bolton, etc. etc.' This triangle Miss Bolton subsequently deeded to Christ Church.* [Footnote * states as follows:  "See page 174]  

The Hunter map of 1891 shows the base of the triangle on the Shore Road as 72 feet 6 inches, extending west from the corner of the Shore Road and Pelhamdale. Unfortunately, the length of the other two sides are not shown. The angle formed by the Shore Road and Pelhamdale was shown as 88 degrees and 26 minutes; the angle formed by the Shore Road and what would be the hypothenuse, if it were a right-angled triangle, is shown as 60 degrees and 4-5 minutes. Consequently, the third angle must be 30 degrees and 49 minutes. The Hunter map of 1891 gives the bearing of the northwesterly side of the triangle--namely, the side across the face of the Christ Church property, as N.23 and one-half degrees W. This triangular tract which, in the deed of 1867 was described as being in New Rochelle, of course is now part of the Christ Church property, being the corner of the tract, and is in Pelham Manor, since the present boundary line is several hundred feet eastward.

The Schuyler-Crosby Survey, made 1872, is shown on map No. 615, filed February 17, 1874 , and is entitled Map Showing the Boundary Line dividing the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York, surveyed in accordance with the law passed by the New York Legislature, May 12, 1870: George W. Davids, Supervisor, New Rochelle; Ben Hegeman, Supervisor, Pelham; John Schuyler and Horace Crosby, Surveyors, scale 200 feet to an inch (surveyed) 1872. 

This Schuyler-Crosby Map has the following note: 'The point marked A on Town Line was established by measuring the width of the Town as given on Captain Bond's map, from the Town Line between Marmaroneck [sic] and New Rochelle, westerly along the line of the center of Eastchester Road. The point marked B on the Town Line was established in like manner, by measuring westerly, the distance given on Capt. Bond's Map from the center of the Town, along the line between Andara Barrat and Andara Nodind, Jr. A straight line was then run through these points from the middle of the Hutchinson River to the north edge of the big swamp (now in the Country Club, north of the Harlem Branch of the New Haven Railroad). This is the Town Line as shown on Capt. Bond's map, the bearing of which then given, stood North and South. From the Swamp to the Sound, the bearing of the line according to :Capt. Bond's map is S27'E, hence at the north edge of the swamp a deflection of 27' to the left was made, and another straight line was run to the Sound. The broad red line upon the map represents the correct Town Line.' On this 1872 Survey Map No. 615, filed February 17, 1874, the line from the monument in the Country Club to the Sound has the following notation above it: 'N27W by Capt. Bond's Map 1711'; and below the line: 'N28 30W from magnetic meridian.' 

The next map found showing the boundary is No. 1332, filed July 18, 1898, surveyed by John F. Fairchild, Engineer, title of which reads: Map Showing the Established Boundary line between the Town of :New Rochelle and the Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York. We hereby certify that the map was made in accordance with provisions of Chapter 782, Laws of 1870, State of New York, and an Act of the Board of Supervisors, Westchester County, passed March 16, 1898. 

On this map there is a monument at the edge of the Sound on Travers Island, marked G, and a monument beyond the Great Swamp in the Country Club, marked C. Underneath the line between these two points there is a Note which reads : 'Line 'G-C' is the line surveyed by Schuyler & Crosby (in 1872) as the Town Line, south of the angle at the northernly edge of the Big Swamp, and shown upon Map 615 (filed February 17, 1874).' Immediately above the line is the following notation: 'N 27--15W.' 

* * * 

From a letter dated New Rochelle, Sept. 13, 1944, from Morgan H. Seacord of the Huguenot & Historical Associates, the following is quoted: 'There appears to have been some disagreement about this line prior to 1870. I do not know when or how it started, or the details of the respective claims; however, the matter was not settled as it was supposed, by legislation, Chapter 782 of the Laws of 1870, which act fixed the line as shown by the Bond Map of New Rochelle. Evidently this did not clear up the matter as to exact location, and Pelham petitioned the Board of Supervisors in the fall of 1897, to locate and fix the line. I do not have before me, a record of the subsequent proceedings there, but it appears that it was done in due course. Nevertheless, the action so taken was challenged in the case of Govers vs. Board of Supervisors, which was decided in the Court of Appeals in 1902, reported in 171 New York Reports, page 403. In the interval between 1870 and 1902, the Bond map had disappeared, probably stolen, and has never been found to this day. The boundary line dispute was again brought before the Board of Supervisors in 1927, and it was fixed in November of that year.' (See Appendix to Laws of 1929, page 1773 &c.) 

Thomas B. Fenlon, one time member of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester Co., from the Town of Pelham, wrote in January, 1945:  '. . . the case of Govers v. Board of Supervisors shows that Supervisor Shinn of Pelham applied to the Board of Supervisors in 1897 for a resolution or act determining the boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle. Mr. Shinn claimed that the line was disputed, and the Court of Appeals found that it was. Apparently the Legislature in 1870 had defined the line between the two towns as that laid down upon the map made by Capt. Bond in the year 1711, and on file in the Town Clerk's Office in the Town of New Rochelle, and as laid down on a copy of said map made by James Davenport in 1798, and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor. In 1872 Engineers had been employed to locate the line and their work resulted in a line which was acquiesced in until the autumn of 1897, when the Town Board of Pelham petitioned the Board of Supervisors, through Mr. Shinn, to locate the boundary line in question. The Board of Supervisors selected the Bond map, but it appeared that the Engineer who had worked in 1872 did not consult the Davenport map. The Bond map had been filed in New Rochelle and the Davenport map had been filed in Albany. The Bond map was lost some time after 1870. At the time it was last seen it was torn and patched on the back and repaired in several places, and it was difficult to tell from it upon what scale the map had been drawn. That was the principal objection made by Govers. Govers claimed that there was no dispute because the 1870 law referred not only to the Bond map but also to the Davenport map, and if the Davenport map had been examined it would have shown the exact line. The Court of Appeals sustained the action of the Board of Supervisors in fixing the line. 

'In 1927 the Board of Supervisors passed another act, pursuant to section 37 of the County Law, defining the line by metes and bounds. That act, which appears in the appendix to the Laws of 192 9, page 1773, shows that the line as there defined runs from the New Haven Railroad tracks to the Boston Post Road. The exact line is given in that act, and it seems to follow a map made by John F. Fairchild in 1898.'

Source:  Barr, Lockwood Anderson, A Brief, But Most Complete & True Account of the Settlement of the Ancient Town of Pelham Westchester County, State of New York Known One Time Well & Favourably as the Lordshipp & Manour of Pelham Also The Story of the Three Modern Villages Called The Pelhams, pp. 70-79 (The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946) (Library of Congress Control Number 47003441, Library of Congress Call Number F129.P38B3). 

Additional Resources Regarding the Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle

Below is the text of the May 12, 1870 New York Statute Purporting to Resolve the Boundary Dispute.

"Chap. 782.

AN ACT to establish and settle the boundary between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, in the county of Westchester.

PASSED MAY 12, 1870.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  The boundary line dividing the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, in the county of Westchester, being the northeast boundary of Pelham, and the southwest boundary of New Rochelle, is hereby fixed, established and settled in accordance with, and as laid down upon, the map made by Captain Bond, in the year seventeen hundred and eleven, and on file in the town clerk's office in the town of New Rochelle, and as laid down on a copy of the said map made by James Davenport, in seventeen hundred and ninety-eight, and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor.

§ 2.  This act shall take effect immediately."

Source:  Chapter 782, Laws of the State of New York Passed at the Ninety-Third Session of the Legislature, Begun January Fourth, and Ended April Twenty-Sixth, 1870 in the City of Albany, Vol. II, pp. 2010-11 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons and Company, Printers, 1870).

Below is the text of a subsequent appellate judicial decision in 1900 addressing the claim of a taxpayer who attacked the boundary determination.

"(55 App. Div. 40.)

GOVERS v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.  November 23, 1900.)

1.  TOWNS -- ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES -- POWERS OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

Laws 1870, c. 782, provided that the boundary lines between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham were thereby fixed in accordance with a certain designated map.  Id. c. 361, was passed later, which conferred on the board of supervisors power to fix, establish, locate, or define disputed boundary lines between the towns in their county.  This provision was re-enacted in Laws 1892, c. 686.  In 1872 the supervisors of Pelham and New Rochelle had the boundary line as established by the legislature located by surveyors.  Held, that the board of supervisors had jurisdiction of a proceeding brought in 1897 to define the correct line as established by the act of legislature, it being claimed that the line had previously been erroneously located.

2.  SAME -- REVIEW OF ACTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -- ACTION BY TAXPAYERS.

Code Civ. Proc. § 1925, providing for an action by taxpayers to prevent the waste or injury of the estate, funds, or other property of any county, town, city, or incorporated village of the county, does not authorize an action against the board of supervisors for the purpose of reviewing their decision in locating boundary lines between towns as fixed by an act of the legislature; it not being shown that there was fraud or collusion, and the board having jurisdiction of such an action.

Appeal from trial term, Westchester county.

Action by Robert Govers against the board of supervisors or Westchester county and the town of Pelham.  From a judgment in favore of defendants, plaintiff appeals.  Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., AND BARTLETT, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, AND JENKS, JJ.

J. Addison Young, for appellant.

Henry G. K. Heath, for respondents.

HIRSCHBERG, J.  The plaintiff, as a taxpayer of the town of New Rochelle, in Westchester county, has sued the board of supervisors of said county and the town of Pelham for the purpose of obtaining a judgment declaring null and void an act of said board passed March 16, 1896, defining the boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle.  The action is bourght under the provisions of the act for the protection of taxpayers (chapter 531, Laws 1881, as amended by chapter 673, Laws 1887, and chapter 301, Laws 1892), and wsection 1925 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the judgment paryed for includes the prohibition of the town of Pelham from exercising any acts of jurisdiction over about 50 acres of land which the plaintiff claims have been unlawfully taken from the town of New Rochelle and annexed to the town of Pelham by the official action of the board of supervisors complained of.  It appears that the boundary line between these towns had been in dispute for many years.  In 1870, by chapter 782 of the Laws of that year, the legislature enacted that:  

'The boundary line dividing the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, in the county of Westchester, being the northeast boundary of Pelham, and the southwest boundary of New Rochelle, is hereby fixed, established and settled in accordance with, and as laid down upon, the map made by Captain Bond, in the year seventeen hundred and eleven, and on file in the town clerk's office in the town of New Rochelle, and as laid down on a copy of the said map made by James Davenport, in seventeen hundred and ninety-eight, and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor.'

At the same session of the legislature and some days prior to the passage of this act, chapter 361 of the Laws of 1870 was enacted, conferring for the first time upon boards of supervisors the power 'to fix, establish, locate and define disputed boundary lines between the several towns in their respective counties, by a resolution to be duly passed by a majority of all the members elected to such board.'  This provision was re-enacted in section 36 of the county law (chapter 686, Laws 1892), under the heading 'Establishment of Disputed Lines.'  In the year 1872 the supervisors of the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle employed surveyors to run the line of the boundary as established by the legislature, and the line as located by such surveyors was marked by monuments, and a map of the survey filed in the office of the register of the county.  It was admitted on the trial that this was done under the authority and by the direction of the towns, and that the work was accepted and paid for by them.  The result arrived at by the surveyors appears to have been acquiesced in by both towns until the year 1897, when the town of Pelham objected to the line, claiming that it had been erroneously located, and applied, under section 36 of the county law, to the board of supervisors bearing on the question of the true location of the boundary ine as laid down on Captain Bond's map and James Davenport's copy.  It was conceded that the surveyors acting for the towns had not seen or used the Davenport copy in any way, and, if the result reached by the board of supervisors in adopting a different line from that of these surveyors were the subject of review upon the merits, the action of the board would be found to be supported by the adequate proof.

The appellant insists, however, that the action of the board was wholly without jurisdiction, and this claim is based on the contention that the special act of the legislature establishing the boundary line in question repealed pro tanto the power previously conferred upon supervisors to fix disputed boundary lines, and that section 36 of the county law was but a continuation of the prior law as so qualifiedly repealed, and not a new enactment.  If there is any repeal of the act conferring the power upon supervisors to deine the disputed line, it must be implication resulting from a conflict or inconsistency.  But there is no inconsistency involved.  The act of the legislature establishing and settling the boundary line between the two towns did not purport to locate the line, or to declare its bounds, courses, and monuments.  It fixed, established, and settled the line in accordance with certain maps, but it did not determine the actual physical location which would be in accordance with such maps.  If that location was in dispute, -- that is, if there was a dispute as to where the ine laid down on those maps actually ran, -- the power remained in the board of supervisors to 'locate and define' it, by virtue of chapter 361 of the Laws of 1870, although they could only 'locate and define' it as established and settled by the special act.   And in the exercise of this power the board was required to adopt a resolution which should contain 'the courses, distances and fixed monuments specified in such boundary line or lines, together with a map or survey thereof, with the courses, distances and fixed monuments referred to therein plainly and distinctly marked and indicated thereon.'  The location of the line in question undoubtedly required the exercise of skill and the examination of evidence in addition to that afforded by the maps in order to determine its whereabouts, and it would seem that, instead of being without jurisdiction because of conflict or inconsistency, the action of the board of supervisors was a necessary supplement to the act of the legislature, without which the latter would have been destitute of practical efficiency.

Having jurisdiction in the premises, and having acted in its exercise in good faith, without fraud or collusion, the conclusion reached by the board is not subject to review by the court in this action.  If the action of the board is to be regarded as judicial in its nature, it could not be reviewed, except through the operation of some appropriate writ of review.  If the action was legislative, as the appellant contends, then it was not such legislation as is within the contemplation of the taxpayers' act and section 1925 of the Code.  In view of the adoption of a line by the towns in 1872, the action of the board in substituting a different line may have been unwise or even erroneous; but it would not be illegal within the meaning of the taxpayers' act, nor would the transfer of 50 acres of land from the town of New Rochelle to the town of Pelham, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, free from any taint of fraud, collusion, or corruption, constitute waste or injury to, or of the property of, the former town, within the meaning of that act or of the Code.  In Talcott v. City of Buffalo, 125 N. Y. 280, 26 N. E. 263, it was held that the right of a taxpayer to sue public officers pursuant to the legislation designed to prevent illegal official acts or the waste of public funds is confined to cases 'where the acts complained of are without power, or where corruption, fraud, or bad faith amounting to fraud, is charged.'  In Ziegler v. Chapin, 126 N. Y. 342, 27 N. E. 471, it was declared that the suit authorized by section 1925 of the Code is one which a taxpayer may bring against a public officer 'because of some fraud or bad faith on his part, or to restrain some illegal action.'  See, also, Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. Y. 222, where it was held that an excessive allowance by a board of town audit in a case within its jurisdiction, and in the absence of fraud or collusion, does not constitute waste or injury to the property of the town, within the meaning of the taxpayers' act, and that an erroneous conclusion cannot be reviewed in the action authorized by such act.  The appellant cites People ex rel. Trustees of Village of Jamaica v. Board of Sup'rs of Queens Co., 131 N. Y. 468, 30 N. E. 488, and People ex rel. O'Connor v. Same, 153 N. Y. 370, 47 N. E. 790, as authorities for the maintenance of this action.  In the former case, the action of the supervisors providing for the raising of $400,000 by bonding the town was assailed as illegal and unauthorized by law, and was unquestionably within the mischief which the taxpayers' act was designed to remedy.  In the O'Connor Case the action of the board of supervisors complained of was in establishing a fire district in a town; and, while the court intimated that a taxpayers' action was the appropriate remedy for a review of the proceedings, it was manifest that the validity of the action of the board was attacked by the relator.  It was an official act, which was inherently illegal, and not merely erroneous, because of errors of judgment.  In the case at bar the action of the board of supervisors was not invalid, illegal, or without jurisdiction.  It was free from fraud, collusion, or corruption, and resulted in no waste of public funds or property, and no error of judgment on the part of the board in arriving at its determination, if any existed, can be made the subject of review in a taxpayers' action.  The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  All concur."

Source:  Govers v. Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, et al., 55 App. Div. 40 (2d Dep't, 1900), aff'd, 171 N.Y. 403 (N.Y., 1902).

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."