
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Village of North Pelham, Appellant, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Respondent.
    Second Department,
    April 24, 1908.
    Railroad—name of station lying partly in two villages.
    Where a railroad has only one stopping place located on the boundary line between two incorporated villages which Eure situated in the same township, after which the station is named, the station not being wholly in either village, but half of it in each, neither village is entitled under section 34 of the Railroad Law to have the station bear its particular name.
    Appeal by the relator, the Tillage of North Pelham, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at an adjourned term of the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 10th day of January, 1908,.deny-ing the relator’s motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing The New York, New Haven and Hartford Eailroad Company to change the name of its station of “ Pelham ’' to the name of “ North Pelham.’"
    
      George P. Breckenridge, for the appellant.
    
      William Greenough, for the respondent.
   Gaynor, J.:

The stopping-place of the railroad is between the incorporated villages of Pelham and North Pelham, i. e., the former borders on the centre line of its track to the South and the latter on the said line to the North. There is only one stopping-place there. The Railroad' Law (sec. 34) calls a regular railroad stopping-place a station. It requires that Any such station in an incorporated village shall have the same name as the village”. The name given to this stopping-place by the railroad company is Pelham. It was given for the town of Pelham, within which both villages lie, and before they existed. There being only one stopping-place it cannot be given two names, and as it is not wholly “ in ” either village, but half in each, the petitioner cannot compel the railroad company to change from the old name to the petitioner’s name. The statute has not provided for such a case.

The order should be affirmed.

Woodwaed, Jenks, Hookeb and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  