Burnham v. Jones
| Decision Date | 09 October 1888 |
| Citation | 18 N.E. 432,110 N.Y. 509 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. BURNHAM v. JONES et al., Land Commissioners. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, Third department.
Chas. F. Tabor, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
W. B. Hornblower, for respondent.
Under section 67, art. 4, c. 9, tit. 5, pt. 1, Rev. St., as amended by Laws 1850, c. 283, § 1, on or about the 30th day of September, 1887, the Bartholomay Brewing Company filed with the defendants, as commissioners of the land-office, its application for title to certain lands under the waters of Lake Ontario, at Charlotte, in the county of Monroe, which application was opposed by the relator, upon the ground that he was the owner of a portion of the adjacent uplands. Upon the questions thus raised both parties submitted to the commissioners of the land-office various deeds, searches of title, maps, and affidavits, and the commissioners, after hearing both parties, passed a resolution that a patent issue to the Bartholomay Brewing Company, substantially as asked for. To review the action of the commissioners a writ of certiorari was granted by the supreme court, in compliance with which the commissioners made their return in due time, and the matter came on for hearing at the general term of the supreme court, which reversed the resolution of the commissioners of the land-office, and denied the application of the Brewing Company as to the land in question, without costs for or against either party. A final order was entered upon the decision, from which the commissioners of the land-office and the Bartholomay Brewing Company have separately appealed to this court. The relator now makes this motion to dismiss both appeals. He claims that the commissioners of the land-office are not aggrieved by the decision of the general term, and that therefore they have no right to appeal therefrom. That decision interferes with them in the discharge of their duties. They having resolved that it was their duty, under the statute, to convey the land to the brewing company, determined to do so, and this decision arrests their action. The statute gave them power to grant so much of the lands under navigable waters as they should deem necessary to promote the commerce of the state, or for the beneficial enjoyment of the same by the adjacent upland owners, and this decision, if sustained, interferes with their exercise of this power. It is their duty, representing both public and private interests, to defend any determination which they have made and which they believe to be right. Having determined that the Bartholomay Brewing Company was the adjacent upland owner, and thus entitled to the grant asked for, they should defend their decision, and not permit the land to be conveyed to any other claimant. While, therefore, they did not have any property or pecuniary interest in the matter in controversy, they were nevertheless, we think, in a legal sense, aggrieved by the decision appealed from. That officers thus situated may be both appellants and respond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin
...adverse to his or their authority. State v. Wolfrom, 25 Wis. 468;Moede v. City of Stearns, 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435;People v. Jones, 110 N. Y. 507, 18 N. E. 432. What has been said, it seems, covers every suggestion that has been made why the sheriff of Milwaukee county was not entitled t......
-
Commco, Inc. v. Amelkin
...but also so that substantial justice will be done. It is not, however, as were the Land Commissioners involved in People ex rel. Burnham v. Jones, 110 N.Y. 509, 18 N.E. 432, the only authority upon which the public duty as to the matter in hand rests and should be accorded no right, apart f......
-
Leventhal v. Michaelis
...of lands under water need not be a party to a certiorari proceeding brought by the unsuccessful applicant (People ex rel. Burnham v. Jones, 110 N.Y. 509, 512, 18 N.E. 432, 433). It will be observed that, with one exception, the foregoing cases fit the principle that one whose rights have ri......
-
Heart River Irr. Dist., In re, 7242
...the meaning of Sec. 61-0733 and as such has an interest in the subject matter of the action. The situation in People ex rel. Burnham v. Jones, 110 N.Y. 509, 18 N.E. 432, 433, was very similar to the case at bar. There, as here, the governing body was vested with broad discretionary powers. ......