Hanrahan v. Terminal Station Commission

152 A.D. 349, 136 N.Y.S. 1001, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8537
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 A.D. 349 (Hanrahan v. Terminal Station Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hanrahan v. Terminal Station Commission, 152 A.D. 349, 136 N.Y.S. 1001, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Foote,. J.:

We will first consider whether this statute violates section 10 of article 8 of the State Constitution, which, so far as pertinent, is as follows: “bio - * - city * * * shall hereafter . give any money or property, or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation * * * nor shall any such * _ * * city * * * be allowed to incur any indebtedness except for * * * city * * * purposes. ”

It is the contention of plaintiff and the defendant the city of Buffalo that this statute was intended to and does authorize and provide for payment by the city of Buffalo of a portion of the cost of lands to be acquired for railroad stations, tracks, etc., the title to which lands is to become vested-in the railroad company, and that such a contribution of city money falls within the prohibition of the above-quoted section of the. Constitution.

[355]*355The defendant, the Terminal Commission, contends that the act, properly construed, does not authorize or contemplate such a contribution of city money to the railroad companies. Nor does this defendant claim that if the act does, contemplate the payment by the city of Buffalo of any part of the purchase price of lands for a new' or additional right of way or stations, yards, or facilities for improving and enlarging the terminals óf the railroads, it would be a valid exercise of legislative power. The question, therefore, turns upon the construction of the act, to ascertain its true intent and meaning.

The purpose of the act and the general power of the commissioners is thus stated in the 1st section: After naming the commissioners, this section proceeds, any seven of whom are authorized and directed to adopt, from time to time, plans for the purpose of relieving the congested condition of the railroad stations and terminals in the city of Buffalo, which plans shall require the railroads, or other transportation corporations operating within the city of Buffalo, to make such changes in the location or use' of any existing tracks, switches, terminals, stations or railroad facilities within said city, and which shall require the city to make such changes in the location or grades of the streets, alleys or lands owned by said city, adjacent to or contiguous to such tracks, switches, terminals, stations or facilities, which in the judgment of said commissioners will secure to the public . freedom from the obstruction of the. streets of said city by railroads and adequate services and facilities for the transportation of passengers, freight and property in..said city.”

Nothing contained in this section directs or implies that the ■city funds áre to be used to acquire additional lands for the benefit of the railroad companies. It appears to be the intent of this section that the commission shall be vested .with a power in respect to compelling railroad companies to improve then-terminals similar to that vested in the State Public Service Commissions, and, in addition, that the commission shall have power over the city streets and city-owned property, to compel the city to make such changes and alterations therein as may be necessary to permit the enlargement and improvement of the railroad terminals and at the same time relieve the streets of [356]*356railway tracks and structures as far as possible in the interest of the city and its inhabitants.

After the commissioners have prepared a tentative plan for the proposed improvement of any railway terminal and have held the hearing required, after notice to all interested, section 3 of the act requires the commissioners then to make a report in writing, “wherein they shall state the plan adopted by them; the location of the railroad passenger and freight stations (which shall be located at or near their present location), yards and appurtenances and facilities to be used in connection therewith, and of the public and railroad approaches thereto, and of the streets, squares and public places contiguous or adjacent to said’stations, yards, facilities or approaches to be used for said stations, yards and therewith connected facilities by the respective railroad corporations whose railroads enter or operate within the city of Buffalo; the change in the location or grades of the streets, alleys or lands owned by said city, and the change in the grades of existing structures carrying streets over or under railroads, which may be necessary in the judgment of said commissioners to secure to the public freedom from the obstructions of the streets of said city by railroads and adequate services for the • transportation of passengers, freight and property in the use of the railroad tracks, switches, terminal stations or facilities.”

The plan for the improvement having thus been definitely determined,, the commissioners are then required by section 4 to make and serve an order directing such improvements and changes to be made within the time specified in the order, and the section then proceeds as follows: “and such railroad or other transportation corporation and the city of'Buffalo are hereby required and directed to make the improvements or changes required of them, or any of them, by such order of the commission served upon them as herein provided.”

Section 5 provides that the commissioners are authorized on behalf .of the city to contract with any railroad company for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the act and to agree upon the change of location or grade of streets, and for the exchange or sale of lands owned by the city “ at a price therefor to he determined cos hereinafter provided.” This [357]*357price, as appears from subsequent sections, is to be the fair market value of the lands owned by the city, to be determined by three commissioners appointed by the Supreme Court as in condemnation proceedings.

Thus far nothing appears in the act by which any city money is to be used to purchase property for the use of the railroad companies. We now come to section 6, which is claimed to authorize such use of city money. We quote this section in full: The commissioners may agree with any railroad or other transportation corporation interested, and any of them, what portion of the work necessary to be done shall be done by any such company interested, and what portion of the work shall be done by the city, and what portion of the cost of the proposed improvement shall be paid by each. The cost of any structure and the maintenance thereof built upon the lands to be used by any railroad company in the erection and maintenance of its railroad passenger or freight stations, yard or approach, shall be at the sole expense of said railroad company interested.”

The first sentence of this section is copied almost verbatim from section 9 of the Grade Crossing Act for the city of Buffalo (Laws of 1888, chap. 345), as amended by chapter 358 of the Laws of 1911, as are many other sections of the present act. Standing by itself, it might be interpreted as authorizing an agreement between the commissioners and a railroad company by which the city should pay a portion of the cost of the lands to be acquired and used for railroad purposes, the title to which is to vest in the railroad company; but, construed with the previous sections, we think it was not intended to authorize such use of city money. It certainly does not require the commissioners to enter into an agreement of that character, and in view of the constitutional prohibition, .an agreement of that character, we may assume, could not be lawfully made, and if made, could not be lawfully carried out.

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

Related

People ex rel. Simon v. Bradley
155 A.D. 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 A.D. 349, 136 N.Y.S. 1001, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanrahan-v-terminal-station-commission-nyappdiv-1912.