Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse Rail Road

25 Wend. 462
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1841
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 25 Wend. 462 (Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse Rail Road) 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
Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse Rail Road, 25 Wend. 462 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1841).

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, C. J.

It is quite obvious, from the language of the charter of the defendants, and of the act of 1835, Statutes of 1834, p. 410, and of 1835, p. 340, that the power conferred upon the company to enter upon and occupy a public highway, in laying the track of their road, relates only to the public property in the road ; to the public use and enjoyment of it, without intending to interfere with any private or individual interests that might be concerned. Hence the legislature guard only against any obstruction of the common use. The road is to be restored to its former state, or in a manner not to impair its usefulness ; that is, in such manner that the public may continue to enjoy it as before.

The statutes effectually protect the company, if they comply with the conditions, from an indictment, or against any interference with their works as a public nuisance, on account of their occupation of the highway; but not against claims for private damages, arising from consequential injuries to adjacent owners. Provision for such injuries was not made, because no authority was conferred to commit them. The company may occupy the road, but they must occupy it at their peril, in a way not to prejudice private rights.

[355]*355Even if upon a fair construction of the grant, the power conferred is broad enough to protect the company against all the consequential injuries to private interests, and was so intended by the legislature, it would be impossible to uphold, it to this extent, where no provision has been made for full compensation. It would be in violation of the fundamental law of the land, as repeatedly declared in this court, and in the court for the correction of errors. 18 Wendell, 1.

*As the pleas constitute no defence to the cause of action set [*465 ] forth in the declaration, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

Related

Matter of City of New York (New Street)
109 N.E. 104 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Brand v. Multnomah County
60 P. 390 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hood
94 F. 618 (Sixth Circuit, 1899)
Buford v. Smith
21 S.W. 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Indianapolis & Cumberland Gravel Road Co. v. Belt Railway Co.
10 N.E. 923 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Conklin v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
6 N.E. 663 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Conklin v. New York, O. & W. Railroad
1 N.Y. St. Rep. 677 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Uline v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
4 N.E. 536 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Uline v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
101 N.Y. 98 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Bell v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 560 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)
Randall v. Jacksonville Street Railroad
19 Fla. 409 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)
Cogswell v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
16 Jones & S. 31 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1881)
Murphy v. City of Wilmington
6 Del. 108 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1880)
Colorado Central R. v. Mollandin
4 Colo. 154 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1878)
Lowrey v. Brooklyn City
4 Abb. N. Cas. 32 (New York City Court, 1878)
Wash. Cemetery v. . P.P. C.I.R.R. Co.
68 N.Y. 591 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
Washington Cemetery v. Prospect Park & Coney Island Railroad
68 N.Y. 591 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
Bloomfield & Rochester Natural Gas-Light Co. v. Calkins
62 N.Y. 386 (New York Court of Appeals, 1875)
Kaiser v. St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls Railroad
22 Minn. 149 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1875)
Trenton Water Power Co. v. Raff
36 N.J.L. 335 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Wend. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-auburn-syracuse-rail-road-nysupct-1841.