Folts v. . State of New York
New York Court of Appeals
The nature of the appeal and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The hoard of claims had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. (Clement v. State, 105 N. Y. 621; Heacock v. State, Id. 246; Collins v. State, Id. 641; Reed v. People, 13 N. Y. S. Rep. 815.) The statute of limitations is not a bar, t.o the whole at least, of the claimant’s claim.
Read the full summary
The nature of the appeal and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The hoard of claims had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. (Clement v. State, 105 N. Y. 621; Heacock v. State, Id. 246; Collins v. State, Id. 641; Reed v. People, 13 N. Y. S. Rep. 815.) The statute of limitations is not a bar, t.o the whole at least, of the claimant’s claim. (Reed v. People, 13 N. Y. S. Rep. 815; 8 id. 172; Arnold v. H. R. R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 661; Corkings v. State, 99 id. 499; McMaster v. State, 103 id. 555.) The damages and injuries complained of were continuing damages during…
1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.
This is an appeal from an order made by the board of claims on the 10th day of J une, 1885, dismissing the claims of the appellant., upon the ground that it appeared upon the face of the claims that they were barred by the statute of limitations, and that the board of claims had not jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.
The claims were in due form and verified, and were duly-presented on the 9th day of December, 1878, to the canal appraisers and filed under the law then in force, and not having been heard or determined under such law, were transferred under the act, chapter 205 of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reed v. . the StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Corkings v. . the StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dufel v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Burrows Paper Co. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1940