People of the State of N.Y. v. . Wasson

64 N.Y. 167, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 47
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 64 N.Y. 167 (People of the State of N.Y. v. . Wasson) 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
People of the State of N.Y. v. . Wasson, 64 N.Y. 167, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 47 (N.Y. 1876).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs seek to have the award declared void, on account of fraud and want of jurisdiction in the appraisers; and they also ask to restrain its enforcement, alleging that Wasson had made a motion in the Supi’eme Court at Special Term for a peremptory mandamus to compel the auditor to pay it, which was pending and undecided at the commencement of this action.

We think there are two answers to this action: 1. The statute (Laws of 1868, chap. 520), under which jurisdiction was conferred upon the appraisers to hear and decide these claims, gives to either party the right to appeal to the canal board, as in other, eases. There is no allegation or proof that the appeal was prevented by fraud, collusion, accident or mistake. The canal board had ample power, by various statutes, to grant plaintiffs all the relief they could obtain in this action. (Laws of 1829, chap. 368; Laws of 1840, chap. 201; Laws of 1866, chap. 836; Laws of 1868, chap. 579.) Having this easy and simple remedy provided by law for all the grievances of which they complain, plaintiffs should not have resorted to an independent action. 2. Wasson had commenced proceedings to enforce payment of the award by mandamus. In those proceedings the auditor, on behalf of the State could have set up, in his return to the writ, any defence, legal or equitable, which the State had, going to the validity of the award. There are no allegations in the com *171 plaint and no proof that plaintiff’s right could not he perfectly protected in those proceedings, and they should not, therefore, be enjoined by a suit in equity.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Colson v. Pelgram
182 N.E. 19 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Newby & White v. Drainage District
79 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Andel v. Starkel
61 N.E. 356 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
Hooker v. City of Rochester
57 A.D. 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
J. & A. McKechnie Brewing Co. v. Trustees of the Village of Canandaigua
15 A.D. 139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
MacLaury v. . Hart
24 N.E. 1013 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
St. Stephen Church Cases
25 Abb. N. Cas. 230 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 N.Y. 167, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-the-state-of-ny-v-wasson-ny-1876.