People ex rel. Macey v. Hillsdale
New York Supreme Court
moved for a rule, that the defendants show cause, by the next term, why an information in the nature of a quo warranto, should not be filed against them. He read affidavits, stating, that the road had been opened through the land of the complainants, and used, without any, offer having been made to them to agree, upon the compensation, and without having the damages ascertained according to law.
1Per curiam
If the defendants have not followed the directions of the act relative to the compensation to be made to the owners of the land, through which the road had been made, they are trespassers, and the complainants have adequate, remedy in the usual course of the common law. The public are no way interested in the controversy or complaint, and that is a sufficient reason for not granting this extraordinary remedy.
Rule refused.
2Cited by23 opinions
- People v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Sharman v. HuotMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- Whitney v. BrunetteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- State ex rel. Vance v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- People ex rel. Byers v. Grand River Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1889
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.