Danforth v. . Suydam
New York Court of Appeals
In the spring of 1836, the canal commissioners appropriated mill lot E. in the city of Eochester, for the enlargement of the Erie Canal, pursuant to the act of May 11, 1835, in relation to the Erie Canal. Joseph Strong was, then the owner, but neglected to claim damages within a year after the appropriation as required by the statute.
Read the full summary
In the spring of 1836, the canal commissioners appropriated mill lot E. in the city of Eochester, for the enlargement of the Erie Canal, pursuant to the act of May 11, 1835, in relation to the Erie Canal. Joseph Strong was, then the owner, but neglected to claim damages within a year after the appropriation as required by the statute. (1 B. S. 226, § 48.) In March, 1837, Strong conveyed to one Chapin, an undivided third of the lot, subject to the rights which the state had acquired by such appropriation; He took back a mortgage for the purchase money, which he afterwards assigned to the…
1Opinion of the CourtHurlbut, J.
If it he conceded that by the act of appropriation on the part of the state. Strong had become divested of the legal title to “ mill lot E.,” and that by reason of his neglect to present a claim for compensation within the time required by law, there remained to him no remedy in the courts to recover his damages, nevertheless the state was under a moral obligation to render a just compensation for the land so appropriated to the public use, and the legislature must be deemed to have performed simply an act of justice, and not of favor, in passing the act for the relief of Ely and others, on…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gibson v. GibsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- People ex rel. Millard v. ChapinNew York Supreme Court · 1886