People ex rel. City of Yonkers v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

23 N.Y.S. 456, 69 Hun 166, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 166, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 530
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 456 (People ex rel. City of Yonkers v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) 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
People ex rel. City of Yonkers v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 23 N.Y.S. 456, 69 Hun 166, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 166, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 530 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Opinion

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying the relator’s application for a writ of mandamus, and of costs to the defendant against the relator. This proceeding was brought by the relator to compel the defendant, by writ of mandamus, to take Locust street, in the city of Yonkers, across its tracks, under the provisions of chapter 62 of the Laws of 1853.1 We .think it is plain, from the evidence and the findings, that there is no merit in this application. It could result, if granted, in no public benefit, but would subserve only private interests. Indeed, the people of that vicinity would be subjected to danger in the operation of the railroad, and the defendant would be subjected to much inconvenience in the curtailing of its facilities for the operation of its railroad. We also think that the point taken by the defendant, that the road in question was not opened or worked within six years from the time of its being laid out, was fatal to the application, and brought it squarely within the amendment to the Revised Statute passed in 1861, (chapter 311 of the Laws of that year.2) It is not necessary to discuss and distinguish the cases which do not seem to be in full accord upon the subject, for the rule seems to be that where a highway is dedicated to the public use the amendment before referred to applies. The case shows that the defendant had acquired the title to the piece of land sought to be turned into a public highway. Under such circumstances it could not be taken for another public use without special legislative authority, and compensation to the owner. Neither can the defendant be required to take the street across its tracks, under chapter 62, Laws 1853, where the tracks'are in constant use, as was proved in this case. Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Village of Whitehall, 90 N. Y. 24; Railroad Co. v. Williamson, 91 N. Y. 552.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Related

Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. City of New York
155 A.D. 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Townsend v. Bishop
61 A.D. 18 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 N.Y.S. 456, 69 Hun 166, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 166, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-city-of-yonkers-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nysupct-1893.