Henry Muhlker v. New York Harlem Ralilroad Company 12, 13 1904
Decision Date | 23 January 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 99,99 |
Citation | 25 S.Ct. 522,197 U.S. 544,49 L.Ed. 872 |
Parties | HENRY MUHLKER, Plff. in Err. , v. NEW YORK & HARLEM RALILROAD COMPANY and New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Argued December 12, 13, 1904. Ordered for reargument |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Plaintiff sues to enjoin the use of a certain elevated railroad structure on Park avenue, in the city of New York, in front of his premises, unless upon payment of the fee value of certain easements of light, air, and access, and other rights appurtenant to his premises. He also prays damages for injury sustained from the year 1890 to time of trial.
From the evidence in the case the supreme court found that the plaintiff had been, since 1888, the owner of a lot of land on the northwesterly corner of Park avenue and 115th street, on which he, in 1891, erected a five-story brick building, and that there were appurtenant to said lot and building 'certain easements of light, air, and access in and over said Park avenue, in front of said premises.' The defendant, The New York & Harlem Railroad Company, is and was during all the times mentioned herein the owner of a railroad and railroad structures in Park avenue, in front of such premises, and the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company is the lessee of said railroad structures under a lease dated April 1, 1873, for a term of four hundred and one years; that said railroad, prior to 1872, was operated on two tracks laid upon the surface of said avenue and along the center thereof, in front of said premises.
In pursuance of chapter 72 of the Laws of 1872 certain changes were made in the railroad in front of said premises, between the years 1872 and 1874, whereby the number of tracks was increased from two to four, and were laid along the center of the avenue, and at the south line of said premises were at the surface, and at the north line of said premises were laid in a trench about 5 1/2 feet below the surface. In front of said premises the railroad was bounded on both sides by masonry walls about 3 feet high above the surface, and cut off access across said avenue immediately in front of said premises.
The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, in 1872 operated its trains over the railroad in front of said premises, and continued to do so until February 16, 1897.
The other facts are expressed in the finding of the court as follows:
said railroad in Park avenue in front of said premises pursuant to chapter 339 of the Laws of 1892; and that the fee value of said premises has been, and was on October 10, 1900, depreciated thereby in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) below what said fee value would have been on said date if there had been no change in defendant's railroad as aforesaid.
A decree was entered enjoining the use of the railroad structure and its removal from in front of plaintiff's premises but it was provided that the injunction should not become operative if the defendants tender for the purpose of execution by the plaintiff 'a form of conveyance and release' to them of the easements of light, air, and access appurtenant to said premises, and tender further the sum of $3,000, with interest thereon from October 10, 1900. Damages were also adjudged to plaintiff in the sum of $1,400, with interest from February 16, 1897, and cost. Either party was given the right to move at the foot of the decree for further directions as to the enforcement of the same.
In the form of the decision and judgment entered, and as to the legal principles involved, the court professed to follow Lewis v. Now York & H. R. Co. 162 N. Y. 202, 56 N. E. 540.
The judgment was affirmed by the appellate division. It was reversed by the court of appeals (173 N. Y. 549, 66 N. E. 558), and the judgment of that court, upon the remission of the case, was made the judgment of the supreme court and the complaint dismissed without costs. The case was then brought here.
Messrs. Elihu Root, James C. Bushby, and L. M. Berkeley for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 548-553 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Ira A. Place and Thomas Emery for defendants in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice McKenna:
Mr. Justice McKenna, after stating the case, announced the judgment of the court and delivered the following opinion:
As we have observed, the supreme court followed Lewis v. New York & H. R. Co. 162 N. Y. 202, 56 N. E. 540, both in the 'form of decision and judgment' and 'the legal principles involved.' Discussion was not considered necessary. The appellate division affirmed the judgment on the authority of the same case and other cases which had been ruled by it.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 553-561 intentionally omitted]
The court, by brief expression, pointed out the identity of the cases, and disposed of the defense made by the railroad companies of adverse possession as follows:
'The question of defendants having acquired title by adverse possession was considered by this court in both the Fries and Sander Cases. [57 App. Div. 577, 68 N. Y. Supp. 670, and 58 App. Div. 622, 69 N. Y. Supp. 155.] In the former it was said: In the Sander Case this court followed the decision just quoted, the presiding justice dissenting on the sole ground that 'title by adverse possession as to the 24-foot strip, at least, was established by the evidence." [60 App. Div. 621, 69 N. Y. Supp. 910.]
In the case at bar there is a complete change of ruling by the court of appeals. The Lewis Case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
......Louis-san. Francisco Railway Company v. Sebastian Bridge District, the. issues ...229; Shoemaker v. U.S., 147 U.S. 282, 297, 13 Sup.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170;. Paulsen v. Portland, ... loss of air, light, and access (Muhlker v. N.Y. & H.R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 25 Sup.Ct. ......
-
Sotomura v. County of Hawaii
...v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 296, 88 S.Ct. 438, 19 L. Ed.2d 530 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring); Muhlker v. New York & Harlem R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 569-71, 25 S.Ct. 522, 49 L.Ed. 872 (1905); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241, 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979 (......
-
State, State Road Commission v. District Court
...... . . Rehearing Denied April 13, 1938. . . Original. application ...A. Young. Construction Company, are defendants. The action filed in the. ... v. New York Elev. R. Co. , 90 N.Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146, and ... Muhlker v. New York & Harlam R. Co. , 197. U.S. 544, ......
-
Robinson v. Ariyoshi
...242 U.S. 20, 26, 37 S.Ct. 7, 61 L.Ed. 123 (1916), and in contravention of the principles laid down in Muhlker v. New York & Harlem R.R., 197 U.S. 544, 25 S.Ct. 522, 49 L.Ed. 872 (1905). Even though the court may have been motivated to act because the justices thought it was for the best int......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
...v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 60 (1913); Demorest v. City Bank Co., 321 U.S. 36, 42 (1944); Muhlker v. Harlem R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 552 (1905); Joseph L. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 14 YALE L.J. 36, 61 (1964) (discussing the "multitude of existing interests" asso......
-
Limiting Federal and State Enforcement of the Clean Water Act: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment 'Takings' of Private Property
...States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913); Demorest v. City Bank Co., 321 U.S. 36 (1944); Muhlker v. Harlem R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544 (1905); Joseph Sax, Takings and the Police Power , 74 Yale L.J. 36, 61-62 (1964)). 23. Id . at 124 (citing Causby , 328 U.S. at 256. 24. Id ......
-
Future prospects for mining and public land management: the federal 'retention-disposal' policy enters the twenty-first century.
...overruled on other grounds, Oregon v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 382 (1977); Muhlker v. New York & Harlem R.R., 197 U.S. 544, 570-71 (1905) (holding that a state court had unconstitutionally taken an individual's property by abandoning prior precedent). Since Justice......
-
Chapter 2 RESOURCE USE AND THE EMERGING LAW OF "TAKINGS": A REALISTIC APPRAISAL
...[60] See, e.g., Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 233-35 (1897); Muhlker v. New York & Harlem R.R., 197 U.S. 544, 570-71 (1905). [61] See Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364-65 (1932); Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v......