Ladd v. French

New York Supreme Court

Ladd v. French

6 N.Y.S. 56, 3 Silv. Sup. 1, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 952, 53 Hun 635, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 56 (Ladd v. French) 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

Ladd v. French, 6 N.Y.S. 56, 3 Silv. Sup. 1, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 952, 53 Hun 635, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Learned, P. J.

This case involves a small amount, and yet the principle in question is very important. The plaintiff is the owner of land over which a highway runs. The defendant, by the direction of the commissioner of highways, dug gravel from the plaintiff’s land between the traveled part of the road and the plaintiff’s fence, and carried it away, and put it on other parts of the road within the road-district. In our opinion the question is settled by the decision in Robert v. Sadler, 104 N. Y. 229, 10 N. E. Rep. 428, [57]*57and it would be useless to discuss it. This gravel was not taken for the purpose of reducing the highway to a proper grade, which would seem, by that opinion, to be permissible. It was taken to fill up some inequalities elsewhere, or to improve the road elsewhere. The gravel was plaintiff’s, although the public liad a right of way over it; and this taking of the gravel was not incident to the rights of the public. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Learned, P. J.

This case involves a small amount, and yet the principle in question is very important. The plaintiff is the owner of land over which a highway runs. The defendant, by the direction of the commissioner of highways, dug gravel from the plaintiff’s land between the traveled part of the road and the plaintiff’s fence, and carried it away, and put it on other parts of the road within the road-district. In our opinion the question is settled by the decision in Robert v. Sadler, 104 N. Y. 229, 10 N. E. Rep. 428, [57]*57and it would be useless to discuss it. This gravel was not taken for the purpose of reducing the highway to a proper grade, which would seem, by that opinion, to be permissible. It was taken to fill up some inequalities elsewhere, or to improve the road elsewhere. The gravel was plaintiff’s, although the public liad a right of way over it; and this taking of the gravel was not incident to the rights of the public. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 56, 3 Silv. Sup. 1, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 952, 53 Hun 635, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladd-v-french-nysupct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack