Almy v. Harris

5 Johns. 175
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 5 Johns. 175 (Almy v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. 175 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is one error which we consider fatal, and for that we think there must be a judgment of reversal. The act to regulates ferries within this state, (20 sess. ch. 64. sec. 1.) prohibits any person, except Within the southern district, the counties of Orange and Clinton, from keeping or using a ferry, for transporting across any river, stream or lake, any person ór persons, or any goods or merchandise, for profit or hire, unless licensed in the manner directed by that act, under a penalty of five dollars.

If Harris had possessed a right, at the common law, to the exclusive enjoyment of this ferry, then, the statute-giving a remedy in the affirmative, without a negative expressed or implied, for a matter authorised by the common law, he might notwithstanding the statute, have his remedy by action at the common law. (l Com. Dig. Action on Statute, (C.) But Harris had no exclusive [176]*176right at the common law, nor any right but what he derived from the statute. Consequently,* he can have no right, since the statute, but those it gives; and his remedy, therefore, must be under the statute, and thfe penalty only can be recovered.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Knutson
234 N.W. 548 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
State ex rel. King County v. Superior Court
104 Wash. 268 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
City of New York v. New Jersey & Staten Island Ferry Co.
173 A.D. 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Woollcott v. Shubert
169 A.D. 194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Choctaw & Memphis Railway Co. v. Vosburg
72 S.W. 574 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1903)
Mairs v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
73 A.D. 265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Seeley v. City of Amsterdam
31 Misc. 123 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)
Carroll v. Campbell
19 S.W. 809 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Dutchess County Mutual Insurance v. Van Wagonen
30 N.E. 971 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Humphrey
16 Colo. 34 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1891)
Donegan v. Erhardt
3 N.Y.S. 820 (Superior Court of New York, 1888)
Donegan v. Erhardt
23 Jones & S. 502 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1888)
Donegan v. Erhardt
16 N.Y. St. Rep. 579 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Pentlarge v. Kirby
19 F. 501 (S.D. New York, 1884)
Bridges v. . B'd Supervisors of Sullivan Co.
92 N.Y. 570 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Lionberger v. Broadway Savings Bank
10 Mo. App. 499 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Commissioners v. Bank
32 Ohio St. (N.S.) 194 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1877)
Moffit v. Medsker Draining Ass'n
48 Ind. 107 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
People v. Hickey
5 Daly 365 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1874)
People ex rel. Bagley v. Green
3 Thomp. & Cook 90 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Johns. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almy-v-harris-nysupct-1809.