Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady Rail Road
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the complainant for an injunction, to restiain the defendants from entering upon or taking possession of that part of the site of their rail road which had been laid out over the complainant’s premises.
Read the full summary
This was an application on the part of the complainant for an injunction, to restiain the defendants from entering upon or taking possession of that part of the site of their rail road which had been laid out over the complainant’s premises. The bill set out at length the act of the 16th of February, 1831, incorporating the company; and showed that the stock of the company had been subscribed and the company organized by the election of directors, and the appointment of a president, vice-president, and other officers and agents, according to the provisions of the act of incorporation. It also…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There can be no doubt in this case of the right of the company to lay out "the road in the manner they have done, and to take the property of the complainant *72for that purpose, provided the authority given by the act and the mode of compensating the owners of lands through which the road is to run are not in violation of the constitution of this state. Even if the validity of this act were doubtful, I am not prepared to say the verbal consent proved by two or three wit- ■ nesses, and acted on by the agents of the company, would not be sufficient to preclude the complainant in a…
2Cited by153 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- The West River Bridge Company v. DIXSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Davis v. . the Mayor, C., of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Matter of RyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
148 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.