Legal Opinion

Brunett v. City of Rochester

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1925Published

1Opinion of the Court

Thompson, J.:

The State acquired the fee to these lands by force of the statute. The fact that the persons interested in the premises never exhibited to the appraisers a statement of their claims; that no appraisement was made of the damages and nothing was paid by the State for the land taken, does not affect the question. The State having appropriated the land for canal purposes; having recognized the absolute right of the owner to just compensation, and having made provision for the prompt determination and payment of such compensation, it became seized of the title thereto in fee simple…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sherman v. . KaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Rexford v. . KnightNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
  3. Matter of City of N.Y. (Grand Boulevard)New York Court of Appeals · 1914
  4. Eldridge v. . City of BinghamtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  5. Birdsall v. CaryNew York Supreme Court · 1883

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API