Birdsall v. Cary
New York Supreme Court
When the Chenango canal was constructed defendants’ grantor owned lot No. 5, and plaintiff’s grantor owned lot No. 2, which adjoined five on the west. The state previous to 1837 appropriated a strip of land from the east side of lot 5 and adjacent, to lot 2 (appropriating no part of lot 2) for the Chenango canal.
Read the full summary
When the Chenango canal was constructed defendants’ grantor owned lot No. 5, and plaintiff’s grantor owned lot No. 2, which adjoined five on the west. The state previous to 1837 appropriated a strip of land from the east side of lot 5 and adjacent, to lot 2 (appropriating no part of lot 2) for the Chenango canal. The persons interested in the premises never exhibited to the appraisers a statement of their claims; no appraisement was made of the damages and benefits 'resulting to them on account of the appropriation, and nothing was paid by the state for the land taken. The canal was completed…
1Opinion of the CourtFollett, J.
— The decision of this case turns upon the question, whether the state acquired a fee or a permanent interest in the land, which survived the abandonment of the canal, and which could be granted to the adjoining owner by the legislature.
At the date of the appropriation in question the following sections of title 9, chapter 9, part 1, Revised Statutes, were in force:
Section 46. “When any lands, waters or streams, appropriated by the canal commissioners to the use of The public, shall not be given or granted to the state, it shall be the duty of the appraisers to make a just and equitable…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. ArmstrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Newell v. People Ex Rel. PhelpsNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Hood v. . HoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Rexford v. . KnightNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Neitzel v. Spokane International Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Eldridge v. . City of BinghamtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- In re JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Baker v. OakwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- In re the City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.