Mayor v. New Jersey Steam-Boat Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1887 |
| Citation | 12 N.E. 435,106 N.Y. 28 |
| Parties | MAYOR, ETC., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. NEW JERSEY STEAM-BOAT TRANSP. CO., impleaded, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from judgment of the superior court of the city of New York.
Noah Davis, James McNamee, and Adolph L. Pincoffs, for appellants.
James C. Carter and W. W. MacFarland, for respondents.
The opinion in the case against the Independent Steam-Boat Company covers substantially all the questions which arise in this case, and but little more needs now to be written. The complaints in both cases are substantially alike, and so are the judgments rendered, except that the individual defendants in this case were by their own consent enjoined with the other defendants, and they have not appealed.
The ferry established by the city, and operated under it, ran between the foot of White Hall street, in the city, and New Brighton, Sailors' Snug Harbor, West Brighton, Port Richmond, and Eim Park, all places on the north shore of Staten island; and the unauthorized ferry operated by the Independent Steam-Boat Company ran between pier 18 on the Hudson river, in the city, and the same places on the shore of Staten island. The ferry operated by the New Jersey Steam-Boat Transportation Company started from the same pier in the city, and ran thence to the city of Bayou, in the state of New Jersey, on the north shore of the Kill Van Kull, to West Brighton, thence to Port Richmond, thence to Elm Park, and thence to Elizabeth Port, New Jersey; then it returned, stopping at the same places, to the same pier,-the round trip being about twenty-four miles.
The right of the defendant to operate a ferry between the city and any places on the coast of New Jersey is not involved in this action. The sole question is whether it had the right to operate the ferry between the city and Staten island. The fact that the terminus of the ferry in the city was at a private pier, seven-eighths of a mile distant from the ferry terminus established by the city, can make no difference. The city, in the discharge of its duty as the owner of the ferry franchises, was not bound to have more than one terminus for its Staten island ferries in the city. It is not shown nor claimed that more than one was needed there for the accommodation of the public, and it does not appear that passengers and freight were not sufficiently accommodated by the terminus established by the city.
The distance of Elm Park, or even of Elizabeth Port, from the city, is not so great that a ferry could not be established and operated between it and the city....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States
...is an element to be considered and must be taken into account. The Court of Appeals of New York, in Mayor, etc., v. New Jersey Steam-Boat Nav. Co., etc., 106 N. Y. 28, 12 N. E. 435, 436, says: "* * * It is impossible in a general way to specify to what distance over intervening waters ferri......
-
McInnis v. Pace
... ... 100; Town of Golconda v. Feld, 108 Ill. 426; Mayor, ... etc., v. N. J. & N. Co., 106 N.Y. 28 ... The ... learned ... ...
-
United States v. Puget Sound Nav. Co.
...freight between such distant places would be that of common carriers upon public waters." Mayor, etc., of New York v. New Jersey Steam Boat Transportation Company, 106 N.Y. 28, 12 N.E. 435, 436. In Port Richmond & Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Hudson County, 234 U.S. 317, at page 332, 34 S.Ct. ......
-
Puget Sound Nav. Co. v. United States, 9073.
...and freight between such distant places would be that of common carriers upon public waters.' Mayor, etc., of New York v. New Jersey Steamboat Transportation Company, 106 N.Y. 28, 12 N.E. 435, 436. "In Port Richmond Ferry Co. v. Hudson County, 234 U.S. 317, at page 332, 34 S.Ct. 821, at pag......