City of New York v. New Jersey & Staten Island Ferry Co.
The City of New York v. New Jersey and Staten Island Ferry Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Jenks, P. J.:
The judgment should be affirmed upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Kapper at Special Term (92 Mise. Rep. 40). It would be superfluous to add to or to amplify his discussion of the principal question.
The plaintiff is not barred from equitable relief because the unauthorized maintenance of a ferry is. made a misdemeanor by section 870 of the Penal Law. We are cited to Woollcott *497 v. Shubert (169 App. Div. 194 ), wherein is discussed and approved the rule of Almy v. Harris ( 5 Johns. 175 ). Almy v. Harris (supra) is limited in Jordan & Skaneateles Plankroad Co. v. Morley ( 23 N. Y. 554 ), so that the case is not applicable to the case at bar. It is there said': “ It is only where a new right is given, which the party would not be entitled to but for the statute, that the remedy afforded by the statute is exclusive.” Of course, the defendant was afforded no right, actual or apparent, by section 870 of the Penal Law.
The circumstance that a terminus of the ferry is in the State of New Jersey does not affect the right involved in the case at bar. (People v. Babcock, 11 Wend. 586 ; Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. Geisse, 38 N. J. Law, 39; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black [U. S.], 603.)
Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.