TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Genesee Valley Canal Railroad Company

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. the Genesee Valley Canal Railroad Company Et Al., Appellants

People v. Genesee Valley Canal R.R. Co., 95 N.Y. 666 (1884)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 21, 1884
Judges
Andrews
Citations
95 N.Y. 6661884 N.Y. LEXIS 727
Summary
This action was brought to restrain defendants from building the Genesee Valley Canal railroad upon the line adopted by it through the village of Nun da, and tb compel its construction .upon another route. The complaint was dismissed. Defendant made an application for an extra allowance; this was denied. The order stated that “ this is a difficult and extraordinary case within the meaning of section 3253 of the Code of Civil Procedure * * * * but that the value of the subject-matter involved in this action cannot be computed, and that this is not a proper case for such an allowance. ” The court here say: “ The substantial question involved in this action was the right of the defendant, The Genesee Valley Canal Railroad Company, under its charter and the contract with the State, to construct its road upon the line located by the company near the village of Nunda, instead of upon the route of the Gene-see Valley canal, through that village. The court dismissed the complaint. If the action had been maintained, the railroad company would have been deprived of the franchise claimed by it to construct the road on the located line. The primary interest involved in the controversy was the value of the disputed franchise. The amount the company had expended upon the located line would not be the measure of value, noi would the increased cost of constructing the road on the line of the canal furnish such measure. The franchise, if undisputed, may have been valueless. There is no evidence upon that subject, and we concur with the General Term that the papers present no facts as a basis of computation upon which to predicate an extra allowance.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Andrews

Andrews, J.

reads for affirmance, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11894: 21896: 218922026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & Railway Co.32 N.E. 148 (N.Y. 1892)
  2. Godley v. Kerr Salt Co.3 A.D. 17 (1896)
  3. Godley v. Kerr Salt Co.37 N.Y.S. 988 (1896)
  4. Smallwood v. Schwietering31 N.Y.S. 149 (1894)
  5. Smallwood v. Schwietering63 N.Y. St. Rep. 514 (1894)

Most recent

  1. Godley v. Kerr Salt Co.3 A.D. 17 (1896)
  2. Godley v. Kerr Salt Co.37 N.Y.S. 988 (1896)
  3. Smallwood v. Schwietering31 N.Y.S. 149 (1894)
  4. Smallwood v. Schwietering63 N.Y. St. Rep. 514 (1894)
  5. Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & Railway Co.32 N.E. 148 (N.Y. 1892)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list