Griffen v. House

18 Johns. 397
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1820
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 18 Johns. 397 (Griffen v. House) 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
Griffen v. House, 18 Johns. 397 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was undoubtedly intended by the legis-]ature t0 vest jn the president and directors of the company some discretion, in fixing the easterly gate ; but it was tobe near the Massachusetts line. This is a relative term, and regard must be had, in construing the act, to the length of the road, which is about twenty miles. In the case of the People v. Denslow, (1 Caines, 180.) this court decided, that a gate placed at the distance of eight chains and fifteen links from the house oí John Van Hoesen, was a legal exercise of the power granted by this act requiring such gate to be near his house. But there must be some limit to the discretion given, and we are clearly of opinion, that considering the extent of the road, a gate two miles and three quarters from the Massachusetts line, is not placed near that line. We are, also, inclined to the opinion that where the discretion has been once exercised, the power is exhausted; that it cannot be revested, so as to authorize the company to change and move the gate, to suit their convenience, without some strong and manifest necessity to warrant it. Here the company have acted capriciously, and have lost sight of.the trust reposed in them, by changing, several times, the location of the easterly gate, contrary to their first opinion, and without any apparent necessity for it. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Perkins v. Moorestown & Camden Turnpike Co.
48 N.J. Eq. 499 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1891)
Snell v. City of Chicago
8 L.R.A. 858 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Mississippi & Tennessee Railroad v. Devaney
42 Miss. 555 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1869)
People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Scannell
7 Cal. 432 (California Supreme Court, 1857)
People ex rel. Kipp v. Finger
24 Barb. 341 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Hamilton & Deansville Plank Road Co. v. Rice
7 Barb. 157 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Johns. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffen-v-house-nysupct-1820.