People v. White
New York Supreme Court
This was a case submitted to the court, by the parties, for its decision, without action, under section 372 of the code, upon the following statement of facts : In 1819 the canal commissioners, under and by virtue of, and in conformity with, an act of the legislature, passed on the 7th of April, 1819, entitled “ An act concerning the great western and northern canals,” in, behalf of the state entered upon and took possession of a certain piece of land now in the village of…
Read the full summary
This was a case submitted to the court, by the parties, for its decision, without action, under section 372 of the code, upon the following statement of facts : In 1819 the canal commissioners, under and by virtue of, and in conformity with, an act of the legislature, passed on the 7th of April, 1819, entitled “ An act concerning the great western and northern canals,” in, behalf of the state entered upon and took possession of a certain piece of land now in the village of Cohoes, particularly described in the submission, and occupied the same in the construction and as part of the bed of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Parker, J,
I think it is fairly to be inferred from the case, though it is not stated in terms, that the land in dispute, taken by the canal commissioners for the Erie canal in 1819, was duly paid for according to the appraised valuation. The only question to be decided, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs continue to be the owners of the land since the abandonment of it in 1842, when a canal was constructed in another place, with the intention of never again using the land in suit for the purpose of a canal.
What title then did the plaintiffs get, by virtue of the acts of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Livingston v. MayorCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Jackson ex dem. Yates v. HathawayNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Varick v. Smith & The Attorney GeneralNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- May v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- 29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1663, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,924 Yakowicz, Marion v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Howard A. Cohen, Secretary of Revenue, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Leon D. Boncarosky, Director, Bureau of Personnel, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Bruce Sarteschi, Director of Personnel, Department of Justice, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Former Director of Bureau of Personnel, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Justice DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- People ex rel. Heyneman v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Nesbitt v. TrumboIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Webster v. Susquehanna Pole Line Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.