Ontario Knitting Co. v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal, by the plaintiff, the Ontario Knitting Company, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 26th day of September, 1910, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by the plaintiff, the Ontario Knitting Company, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 26th day of September, 1910, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The Barge Canal Act, so called (Laws of 1903, chap. 147), in its 3d section designated the general route of the improved canals and directed the Superintendent of Public Works and the State Engineer to improve them in the manner indicated. (See, also, Id. § 3, as amd. by Laws of 1905, chap. 740, and Laws of 1907,-chap. 710.)…
1Opinion of the Court
Kellogg, J.:
“ Private property cannot he taken for public use unless it is necessary for such public use, but all that is required of such officer or board in determining the necessity for taking private property is that they act in good faith and with sound discretion.” (People v. Fisher, 190 N. Y. 468, 477.)
The officer referred' to in that case was the State Engineer who had permanently appropriated certain lands, and the court was . asked to determine that a permanent appropriation was unnecessary as a temporary appropriation was sufficient. The court sustained the appropriation. It was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. . FisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- People v. FisherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3Cited by3 opinions
- Elkins-Swyers Office Equipment Co. v. County of MoniteauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Schuster v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1953
- Onondaga Water Service Corp. v. Crown Mills, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1928