Lee v. . the Village of Sandy Hill
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the judgment of the General Term in the fourth district, affirming a judgment at the Special Term, for the defendant, on a verdict reserved for consideration by 'the judge who presided at the Circuit. The action was for trespass to land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the judgment of the General Term in the fourth district, affirming a judgment at the Special Term, for the defendant, on a verdict reserved for consideration by 'the judge who presided at the Circuit. The action was for trespass to land. The complaint stated the incorporation of the defendant, the plaintiff’s ownership of the locus in quo, and averred that the defendant unlawfully, wrongfully and forcibly entered upon the premises owned by the plaintiff, took forcible possession thereof, removed the fences, dug up the soil, and threatened to make a highway, The answer contained a…
1Opinion of the CourtMason, J.
The doctrine is too well settled in this court to admit of discussion, that municipal corporations, like the defendant, are liable in trespass for the illegal acts of its officers. (Conrad v. The Trustees of the Village of Ithaca, 16 N. Y. R., 162; Howell and others v. The City of Buffalo, 15 N. Y. R., 512; Hickox v. The Trustees of the Village of Plattsburgh, 16 N. Y. R., 161, note; Weet v. The Trustees of the Village of Brockport, 16 N. Y. R., 161; Stores v. The City of Utica, 17 N. Y. R., 104.) The rule is laid down in Angel and Ames, generally, that as natural persons are liable for the…
2Cited by57 opinions
- Owen v. City of IndependenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Maxmilian v. . MayorNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- City of Detroit v. BlackebyMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Hoover v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Smith v. . City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.