REPORT OF CONSERVATION BUREAU, ATTORNEY-GEN- 

 ERAL'S OFFICE, RELATIVE TO LITIGATIONS 



Pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of chapter 647 of the 

 Laws of 1911, the Conservation Commission transmitted to the 

 Attorney-General all orders to bring actions, suits and proceed- 

 ings which the Commission was authorized to institute and main- 

 tain, and requested the Attorney-General to defend them. 



At the beginning of the year 1914 there were pending eighty- 

 seven actions, the majority of which involved title to lands in 

 the Forest Preserve of the State of 'New York. These were ac- 

 tions transferred to the Conservation Bureau of the Attorney- 

 General's office from the Legal Department of the former Forest, 

 Fish and Game Commission and were awaiting trial. During the 

 year 1914 all pending actions involving title were disposed of by 

 trial, and of these, fifty-five were tried before Hon. Irving G. 

 Vann as official referee. 



These fifty-five actions involved title to lands in Township 15, 

 Totten and Crossfield's Purchase, Hamilton county, the majority 

 of which were brought in 1907. The lands involved were pur- 

 chased by the State from the Indian River Company and sub- 

 sequently it appeared that at the time of purchase there were 

 many occupants of these lands claiming adversely to the Indian 

 River Company and its grantee, the State. The rights of the 

 respective parties were determined upon the trial of these cases 

 and where the State failed in title, the Indian River Company, 

 under the terms of its deed, will be obliged to reimburse the State. 



During the past year four actions, brought in 1910 against the 

 Santa Clara Lumber Company and George IST. Ostrander and 

 others, were argued in the Court of Appeals, and that court 

 rendered its decision in an important action involving a question 

 of title and the right of the Forest, Fish and Game Commissioner 

 to enter into a stipulation permitting judgment to be taken against 

 the State, thereby adjudicating the defendants to be the owners 

 of the land in dispute. While the State had been unsuccessful in 

 the lower courts, the Court of Appeals by unanimous decision re- 

 versed the judgment and directed a new trial of this action. 



[53] 



