Underwood v. Stuyvesant
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass on the case, for obstruct-r 9 ing “ a certain street, or private way, called Peter-street,” -&c. tried at the New-York sittings, in December, 1819, be- „ __ _ . lrr , 7 tore Mr. J ustice Woodworth.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass on the case, for obstruct-r 9 ing “ a certain street, or private way, called Peter-street,” -&c. tried at the New-York sittings, in December, 1819, be- „ __ _ . lrr , 7 tore Mr. J ustice Woodworth. Petrus Stuyvesant, the father of the defendant, being owner of a large tract of land in the ninth ward of the city of New-York, called Petersfield, in the year 1796, caused the whole to be surveyed, and a map thereof made, on which the tract is described as laid out and divided into i,, t streets, blocks, and building lots. Hone of the streets so i-i7 i.7 ,i.iii laid…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, J.
Front the best consideration which I have been able to give to this case, 1 incline to the opinion, that the plaintiff has no right of action. The original survey and map show that Petrus Stuyvesant formed a plan for laying out streets over his land, in 1796; but we must intend that every person knew, that those streets could not be established, as public streets of the city, unless they were sanctioned by the corporation, or other public agents having such powers. The plan was considered as a proposition which the corporation would undoubtedly adopt and sanction, as the city gradually…
2Cited by15 opinions
- City of Cohoes v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Matter of City of N.Y. (Northern Blvd.)New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Littler v. City of LincolnIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- People v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- In re One Hundred & Sixteenth StreetAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.