TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morgan v. New York & Massachusetts Railway Co.

Morgan v. New York & M. Ry. Co.

Morgan v. N.Y. & Mass. Ry. Co., 7 N.Y.S. 731 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 10, 1889
Judges
Dykman
Citations
7 N.Y.S. 73128 N.Y. St. Rep. 8655 Hun 6061889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1274
Headnotes
Eminent Domain—Appraisers’ Award—Recording. 3 Rev. St. N. Y. (8th Ed.) p. 1745, § 18, providing that a certified copy of the order confirming the award of appraisers in condemnation proceedings shall be recorded “in the clerk’s office of the county in which the land described in it is situated, ” does not require recording in the book of conveyances, but a recording in the office of the county clerk is a sufficient compliance.
Summary
Appeal from circuit court, Dutchess county. Action by Mary L. Morgan against the New York & Massachusetts Railway Company on an award of commissioners of appraisal of land condemned by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. 3 Rev. St. N. Y. (8th Ed.) p. 1745, § 18, provides that a certified copy of the order confirming an award of appraisers in condemnation proceedings shall be recorded “in the clerk’s office of the county in which the land described in it is situated.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dykman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Dykman, J.

The appeal in this action presents the same questions, substantially, as those raised in the case of John R.' Lent against the same defendant, ante, 729, (decided at the present term of the court.) Both actions were upon awards of commissioners of appraisal in the same proceedings, but in this action there was an answer to the complaint, and a trial before a jury, at which a verdict was directed for the plaintiff by the trial judge. The questions of law involved in this ease are the same as those in the Lent Case, and the objection respecting the recording of the order of confirmation of the report of the commissioners of appraisal is a question of fact, founded upon an erroneous construction of the statute which requires the order to be recorded. The contention of the defendant is that the order should be recorded in the book of conveyances, but such a construction would render a compliance with the statute impossible in those counties having a register’s office, where all conveyances are required to be recorded. The order was recorded in the office of the county clerk of Dutchess county, and we think the statute received compliance in that respect. There being no question of fact involved upon the trial, the trial judge was justified in directing a verdict. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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