Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1914 |
| Citation | 106 N.E. 758,213 N.Y. 34 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Claim by John J. Jackson against the State of New York for the condemnation of land. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (160 App. Div. 110,145 N. Y. Supp. 131), affirming the ruling of the Board of Claims, claimant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Charles Hickey, of Lockport, for appellant.
James A. Parsons, Atty. Gen. (Joseph P. Coughlin, of Albany, of counsel), for the State.
The state appropriated the claimant's warehouse in the village of Middleport for the use of the barge canal. The Board of Claims found that the value of the building was $9,000 and that of the land $1,300. The claimant had an award for those amounts . The board also found that the building contained machinery, shafting, elevators, and conveyors of the value of $4,353.20. The form in which these articles were annexed to the freehold, and the purpose of the annexation, were such that, as between vendor and vendee, they would have constituted fixtures. For the enhancement of value due to the presence of these fixtures, the Board of Claims refused to award compensation to the claimant. The ruling has been affirmed at the Appellate Division on the ground that the state, after appropriating the warehouse, had the right to reject the fixtures and refuse to pay for them.
[1][2] We think that the power of the state is not so great, nor the plight of the citizen so helpless. ‘Condemnation’ is an enforced sale, and the state stands toward the owner as buyer toward seller. On that basis the rights and duties of each must be determined. It is intolerable that the state, after condemning a factory or warehouse, should surrender to the owner a stock of secondhand machinery and in so doing discharge the full measure of its duty. Severed from the building, such machinery commands only the prices of secondhand articles; attached to a going plant, it may produce an enhancement of value as great as it did when new. The law gives no sanction to so obvious an injustice as would result if the owner were held to forfeit all these elements of value. An appropriation of land, unless qualified when made, is an appropriation of all that is annexed to the land, whether classified as buildings or as fixtures, and so it has frequently been held. Matter of City of N. Y., 118 App. Div. 865,103 N. Y. Supp. 908, affirmed, 189 N. Y. 508, 81 N. E. 1162;Matter of Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 39 App. Div. 589,57 N. Y. Supp. 657;Phipps v. State of N. Y., 69 Misc. Rep. 295,127 N. Y. Supp. 260;Allen v. City of Boston, 137 Mass. 319. We say ‘unless qualified when made,’ because we do not need at this time to decide whether the state, in giving notice of appropriation, may except fixtures that would retain, after severance from the soil, a substantial value as personalty, and thus restrict the payment to the difference between the value of the detached articles and the value added to the building when they were used in connection with it. Price v. Milwaukee & R. R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Buffalo v. J. W. Clement Co.
...appropriated (Marraro v. State of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 285, 292, 239 N.Y.S.2d 105, 109, 189 N.E.2d 606, 609, Supra; Jackson v. State of New York, 213 N.Y. 34, 106 N.E. 758). They are part of the realty so long as they remain fixtures (Matter of Willcox, 165 App.Div. 197, 200, 151 N.Y.S. 141,......
-
Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2004AP2322.
...true that the transaction is an involuntary sale of the property but it is a sale nonetheless.") (citation omitted); Jackson v. State, 213 N.Y. 34, 106 N.E. 758, 758 (1914) (concluding that, after appropriating a warehouse, the government did not have the right to reject the fixtures in the......
-
Horizon Adirondack Corp. v. State
...who wrote: 'We think that the power of the state is not so great, nor the plight of the citizen so helpless.' Jackson v. State of New York, 213 N.Y. 34, 35, 106 N.E. 758. There was some slight indication, possibly because of the recognition of the expanded and expanding utilization of the '......
-
Escondido School Dist. v. Casa Sueños, D043104.
...added another test, one based on economic issues, namely, the economic impact on the property owner. For example, in Jackson v. State (1914) 213 N.Y. 34, 106 N.E. 758, the state's highest court reversed a holding by a lower court that the condemner of a factory had a right to to pay for the......
-
Drafting Condemnation Clauses for Leases in Colorado-issues and Strategies
...paid to the owner by a condemning authority). [43] See, e.g., Friedman and Randolph, supra note 3 at § 13.5. [44] See Jackson v. State, 106 N.E. at 758 (N.Y. 1914) (opinion by Justice Cardozo) (cited with approval in Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Steiner American Corp., 500 P.2d 983, 986 (C......