People v. Hudson River Connecting R. Corp.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1920
• Citation: 228 N.Y. 203,126 N.E. 801
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUDSON RIVER CONNECTING R. CORPORATION.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

228 N.Y. 203

126 N.E. 801

PEOPLE

v.HUDSON RIVER CONNECTING R. CORPORATION.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 2, 1920.

Action by the People of the State of New York against the Hudson River Connecting Railroad Corporation. A final judgment, overruling plaintiff's demurrer to the first and second defenses pleaded in the answer, and dismissing the amended complaint on the merits (104 Misc. Rep. 19,171 N. Y. Supp. 971), was affirmed by the Appellate Division (186 App. Div. 602,174 N. Y. Supp. 754), and plaintiff appeals from that judgment and from an order reversing in part an order denying plaintiff's motion to resettle a previous order vacating an injunction and dismissing the complaint, with costs to defendant (187 App. Div. 963,174 N. Y. Supp. 915) syAppeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (William E. Woollard and C. T. Dawes, both of Albany, of counsel), for the People.

Robert E. Whalen, of Albany, for respondent.

ELKUS, J.

This action is brought by the state of New York to restrain and enjoin ‘a trespass upon lands belonging to the people of the state of New York, lying under the waters of the Hudson river in the counties of Albany and Rensselaer, and to restrain the erection and construction upon said lands of a purpresture, and a public nuisance,’ and to restrain the defendant from constructing a bridge, with two main spans, across the Hudson river.

This controversy is over the kind of bridge to be erected over the Hudson river, a short distance below Albany. The defendant desires to erect a particular bridge, and the state is not opposed to the construction of a bridge at the location selected. Defendant desires to erect a bridge with two spans, one 600 feet in width and the other 405 feet in width, with piers in the bed of the river supporting the spans. The state of New York, at this time, insists that it shall be a bridge with a single span. The difference is cost, in favor of the first bridge, is $4,000,000.

Involved in this apparently simple question are to be considered:

First. The relative rights of the state and the federal government over the Hudson river at a point entirely within the state.

Second. Has the state or the nation prior, or concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction to permit or authorize the construction of a bridge at such a place?

Third. The effect of the United States Bridge Act of March 23, 1906 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 9961-9968).

Fourth. Is the proposed bridge to be used for interstate commerce, and, if so, the effect of that fact upon these propositions?

Fifth. The power of the state Legislature by enactment of forfeit a property franchise granting authority to construct a bridge, but limiting the time of commencement of construction.

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon an order overruling a demurrer to the separate defenses contained in the answer. These separate defenses substantially set forth the following:

(1) The defendant is a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York for the construction of a railroad 22 miles in length, connecting the Hudson division of the New York Centrial & Hudson River Railroad Company near Stuyvesant with the West Shore Railroad, River division, near Feura Bush, with a branch connecting with the Boston & Albany Railroad north of Schodack Landing.

(2) All of the capital stock of the defendant, between January 8, 1914, and December 23, 1914, was owned by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, at which latter date said owner consolidated with the New York Central Railroad Company, which thus became and now is the owner of all defendant's capital stock. The New York Central Railroad Company is engaged in interstate commerce and the transportation of United States mails.

(3) The proposed railroad of defendant includes as an indispensable feature a bridge across the Hudson river at a point south of Castleton in the county of Columbia, New York.

(4) The waters of the Hudson river are navigable from New York City to Troy, N. Y., including the waters at the proposed site of said bridge. Along a considerable portion of its course, the Hudson river constitutes a boundary between the states of New York and New Jersey. The waters of the Hudson at said site are in the state of New York, and are subordinate and subject to the paramount right and authority of the United States under the federal Constitution.

(5) The Legislature of New York state enacted chapter 388 of the Laws of 1913, which became a law April 28, 1913, granting defendant the right to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge upon the line of its railroad between Castleton and Schodack Landing. The bridge should have clearance of at least 135 feet above the mean level of the Hudson and spans not less than 300 feet in length from pier to pier. Plans were to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War and the construction of the bridge was to be commenced on or before May 1, 1914, and completed within five years. This, it is claimed, constituted a grant of a franchise. Defendant accepted and acted upon said franchise, expending prior to June 1, 1917, $380,000 for plans, rights of way, and in erecting said bridge according to plans approved by the Secretary of War. The act of the Legislature it is also claimed constitutes a contract between the state of New York and the defendant which may not constitutionally be impaired.

After the enactment of chapter 388 of the Laws of 1913, defendant caused maps, surveys, and profiles showing the route, including said bridge, to be made and filed the same with the Public Service Commission of New York, together with its petition for certificate of convenience and necessity, and permission to begin construction of the bridge was obtained under date of November 26, 1913, as provided in the Railroad and Public Service Commissions Laws.

(6) On March 13, 1914, Congress granted authority to defendant to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches across the Hudson river at a point between Castleton and Schodack Landing according to the provisions of the federal Bridge Act of March 23, 1906.

(7) On August 9, 1916, Congress extended the time to commence and complete defendant's bridge to the 30th day of March, 1918, and the 30th day of March, 1920, respectively.

(8) Thereafter plans were presented and hearings had resulting in the approval on May 2, 1917, of said plans by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War as required by the Bridge Act.

(9) The determination of the Secretary of War constitutes a determination by federal authority that said bridge is a lawful structure and puts the question beyond state authority.

(10) The New York Legislature passed chapter 713 of the Laws of 1917, which was approved June 1, 1917. Said act is unconstitutional, null, and void, as violative of the United States Constitution and acts of Congress enacted pursuant thereto:

First, as interfering with commerce contrary to article 1, section 8, Constitution of the United States.

Second, Congress having acted, its action is decisive.

Third, because it contravenes acts of Congress under its authority to regulate navigable waters, and attempts to supervise acts of Congress, and violates article 6 of the Constitution of the United States, impairs the obligations of a contract, and deprives defendant of its property without due process of law.

The second defense sets forth:

(1) The location of said proposed bridge is proper, and no more favorable location can be found.

(2) The plans of defendant necessarily contemplate and provide for dredging the channel of the Hudson river, making it practicable for vessels to pass under either span of the bridge without stop. Ice jams do not form at the proposed location. Piers and fenders of the bridge will not cause or facilitate the formation of ice jams. In the event of floods, the piers and fenders of the proposed bridge will act as a guide to navigators, and reduce risks of navigation.

(3) The construction of a bridge such as required by chapter 713 of the Laws of 1917 will cost over $4,000,000 in excess of the type proposed, and by reason of change of plans its erection will be delayed.

The channel of the Hudson river at the site of said bridge as contemplated by the United States is along the westerly side of the river extending approximately 400 feet from the westerly dike of said river at said place and dredged to a depth of 12 feet. The waters of the Hudson river lying easterly of said point are more shallow than the waters of the channel, and by reason of the dredging proposed to be done the general location of the bridge will be improved for navigation.

There are already established and existing, across the Hudson river at Albany, Troy, and Poughkeepsie, bridges that have not as great clearance as that provided for the proposed bridge, according to the plans approved by the Secretary of War, setting forth certain of the dimensions and stating that these bridges do not interfere with navigation.

[1] The ordinary rules as to admissions on demurrer apply here; and also, if necessary, the allegations of the amended complaint may be considered. Douglas v. Coonley, 156 N. Y. 521, 51 N. E. 283,66 Am. St. Rep. 580.

In addition to the matters above referred to, the amended complaint alleges:

The Hudson river is a navigable, tidal river, rising and flowing entirely in New York state to a point more than 100 miles south of the site of the proposed bridge, where it becomesa boundary river between the states of New York and New Jersey.

Plaintiff is the owner in fee simple absolute and in trust for all the people of the state of all lands under the waters of the Hudson river at the point of the proposed bridge, except such as were on or about the 26th day of April, 1901, granted by the commissioners of the land office to one Patterson and one Elder.

The Hudson river is navigable from the Troy dam south to its...