Miner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

25 N.E. 339, 123 N.Y. 242, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 211, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1728
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 7, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 25 N.E. 339 (Miner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 25 N.E. 339, 123 N.Y. 242, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 211, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1728 (N.Y. 1890).

Opinion

*212 Eabl, J.

The Tonawanda Eailroad Company was incorporated by the act, chapter 241 of the Laws of 1832, to construct and operate a railroad from Bochester, in the county of Monroe, to Attica, in the county of Genesee. The first section declares that certain persons named and others should be, and for the term of fifty years from the passage of the act should continue to be, a body corporate and politic. Section 15 provides that in addition to the general powers given by the Bevised Statutes to corporations the Tonawanda Eailroad Company should have certain specified powers, among which was the power “to enter upon any of the lands lying within the contemplated range of the said railroad for the purpose of examining, surveying and establishing its lines.”

Section 16 provides: “In case the corporation shall not be able to acquire the title to the lands within which said railroad shall be laid by purchase or voluntary cession, it shall be lawful for the said corporation to appropriate so much of such lands as may be necessary to its own use, for the purposes contemplated by this act, on complying with the provisions of the six following sections.”

Section 17 provides that the directors may present a petition to the vice-chancellor, setting forth by some proper description “the lands which are wanted for the construction of said railroad, * * * and praying for the appointment of appraisers to assess the damages which the owners of said lands will severally sustain by reason of the appropriation thereof by the said corporation to its own use.”

Section 20 provides that appraisers shall proceed “ to ascertain and assess the damages which each individual owner will sustain by the appropriation of his land for the use or accommodation of such railroad or its appendages."

Section 21 requires that they shall report specifying the damages which the owners of the respective parcels will sustain “ by reason of the appropriation of the same for the purposes aforesaid.”

Section 22 provides that on payment of the damages thus assessed, “the corporation shall immediately become entitled to the use of the said lands for the purposes aforesaid.”

Section 28 provides that “if the legislature of this state shall, at the expiration of ten, and within fifteen years from the completion of said railroad, make provision by law for the re-payment to the said company of the amount expended by them in the construction of said railroad, together with all moneys expended by them for permanent fixtures for the use of said railroad, with interest on such sums at the rate of fourteen per cent per annum, together with all moneys expended by such company for repairs or othewise, for the purposes of said road, after deducting the amount of tolls received by such road, then the said railroad with all fixtures and appurtenances shall vest in and become the property of the people of this state.”

And the last section provides that the legislature might at any time alter, modify or repeal the act.

By the act, chap. 286 of the Laws of 1850, the Tonawanda *213 Eailroad Company and the Attica & Buffalo Eailroad Company were authorized to consolidate into a single corporation, and, when consolidated, the two corporations were to be merged into the new corporation. Section 4 of' the act provides that all and singular the rights and franchises of the companies, “ and all and singular the rights and interests of the said two corporations in and to every species of property, real, personal and mixed, and things in action, shall be deemed to be transferred to and vested in such new corporation without any other deed or transfer, and such new corporation shall hold and enjoy the same, together with the right of way and all other rights of property, in the same manner and to the same extent as if the said two corporations above named should have continued to retain the title and transact the business of such corporations, and the title and real estate acquired by either of said two corporations shall not be deemed to revert or be impaired by anything in this act contained.”

By proceedings taken under the act in the same year the consolidation was effected, and the new corporation took the name of the Buffalo & Bochester Eailroad Company.

Under the act, chap. 76 of the Laws of 1853, the Buffalo & Bochester Eailroad Company and other railroad companies were consolidated, and the Hew York Central Eailroad Company thus formed; and § 4 of that act is the same as § 4 of the prior act.

Pursuant to the act, chap. 917 of the Laws of 1869, the Hew York Central Eailroad Company and the Hudson Eiver Eailroad Company were consolidated, and the defendant was thus formed. Section 4 of the act provides that “ all claims, demands, property, rights of way and every other interest, shall be as effectually the property of the new corporations as they were of the former corporations, parties to tlfe said agreement and act; and the title to all real estate taken by deed or otherwise under the laws of this state, vested in either of such corporations, parties to said agreement and act, shall not be deemed to revert or be in any way impaired by reason of this act, or anything done by virtue thereof, but shall be vested in the new corporation by virtue of such act of consolidation.”

Under these acts the land in question has been continuously used and occupied by the successive railroad companies for railroad purposes. It was taken by condemnation proceedings under the act of 1832, and the claim of the plaintiff is that only its use was taken for fifty years, the chartered life of the Tonawanda Eailroad Company, and that at the expiration of that term the use terminated, and the land reverted to him as the successor in title. The ingenious and vigorous argument of his counsel has failed to convince us that this action is maintainable.

It is conceded that the Tonawanda Eailroad Company did not acquire a fee simple in the land taken by it under the act of 1832. Both parties claim that it acquired an easement in the land; but they differ as to the duration of the easement, the contention of the defendant being that it took a perpetual easement for railroad purposes. It took and paid for all the estate it was authorized to take under the act, and we must, therefore, look to the act to see *214 what estate the legislature intended might be taken. In our efforts to arrive at the legislative intent we must not only scrutinize the language used, but keep in view the purposes to which the land was to be devoted.

The land was to be taken for a permanent public use. It could not have been understood or expected that the' railroad should be operated for the accommodation of the public for fifty years, and that then, after the necessity for it had been greatly increased, it should disappear. While the life of the corporation was limited to fifty years, it could not have been expected that it should really cease to exist at the end of that period. While the legislature reserved the right to cut its life short, it also had the power to extend it. It is the experience of mankind that such quasi public corporations never come to an end by mere effluxion of time.

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

Related

Drew v. Beckwith, Quinn & Co.
114 P.2d 98 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1941)
COMMISSIONER OF INT. REVENUE v. Oswego Falls Corp.
71 F.2d 673 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Cameron v. United Traction Co.
73 N.Y.S. 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 N.E. 339, 123 N.Y. 242, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 211, 1890 N.Y. LEXIS 1728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miner-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-ny-1890.