House v. City of Rochester

15 Barb. 517, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 78
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJune 6, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 15 Barb. 517 (House v. City of Rochester) 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
House v. City of Rochester, 15 Barb. 517, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 78 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Opinion

By the Court, Welles, P. J.

The constitution of this state declares that when private property shall be taken for any public use, the compensation to be made therefor, when such compensation is not made by the state, shall be ascertained by a jury, or by not less than three commissioners appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law.” {Const, of 1846, art. 1, § 7.) The 193d section of the act entitled, an act to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the city of Rochester,” passed April 10th, 1850, {ch. 262, of Bess. L. of 1850,) provides that “ the damages and recompense to be paid to owners of lands taken by the city for public improvements, shall be assessed by three assessors assigned by the common council,” &c. The damages and recompense to the owners of the lands taken for the improvement in question, was ascertained by assessors assigned by the common council in pursuance of the section of the charter referred to. That section is plainly in conflict with the constitution, and the assessment based upon it was unauthorized and void. That the defendant afterwards paid the owners of the lands taken, the amounts ascertained by the assessors for their damages and recompense, and received conveyances of the lands, cannot have a retroactive operation so as to heal the defect and make valid a proceeding which was merely void.. At the time the .assessment was [520]*520made, there was no legal basis for it to rest upon; and the subsequent purchase by the defendant, and conveyance by the owners of the land taken, could, at most, be the foundation of a new or subsequent assessment, but would not authorize the issuing a warrant to collect the previous void assessments. For these reasons the plaintiffs should have judgment on the demurrer.

[Cayuga General Term, June 6, 1853.

Welles, Johnson and T. R. Strong, Justices.]

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Eckerson v. Board of Trustees
45 N.E. 384 (New York Court of Appeals, 1896)
Astor v. Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty
5 Jones & S. 539 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)
Knapp v. Town of Newtown
3 Thomp. & Cook 748 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Menges v. City of Albany
47 How. Pr. 244 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
Clark v. Miller
42 Barb. 255 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Barb. 517, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-v-city-of-rochester-nysupct-1853.