People v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co.

Decision Date08 January 1907
PartiesPEOPLE v. BROOKLYN COOPERAGE CO. et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Action by the people of the state of New York against the Brooklyn Cooperage Company and another. From a judgment affirmed by the Appellate Division (100 N. Y. Supp. 19,114 App. Div. 723) overruling its demurrer, defendant Brooklyn Cooperage Company appeals. Affirmed.

Cullen, C. J., dissenting in part.

Edward M. Shepard, for appellant.

Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Edward B. Whitney and John Agar, of counsel), for respondent.

EDWARD T. BARTLETT, J.

This appeal is allowed by the Appellate Division, and the following question certified: ‘Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’

The defendant, Cornell University, was created a corporation under Laws 1865, p. 1188, c. 585; section 4 (page 1189) reading in part as follows: ‘The leading object of the corporation hereby created shall be to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, including military tactics; in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. But such other branches of science and knowledge may be embraced in the plan of instruction and investigation pertaining to the university as the trustees may deem useful and proper.’

An act was passed in 1898 (page 230, c. 122) entitled ‘An act to promote education in forestry, to encourage and provide for the establishment of a college of forestry at Cornell University, and making an appropriation therefor.’ The act provides:

Section 1. Upon the acceptance by Cornell University of the provisions of this act, which acceptance in writing duly executed and acknowledged in the manner provided by law for the execution of written instruments by corporations, shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state within ten days after the approval of this act, the trustees of Cornell University are authorized and empowered to create and establisha department in said university to be known as and called the New York State College of Forestry for the purpose of education and instruction in the principles and practices of scientific forestry.

Sec. 2. For the purposes of such school and for carrying out the objects of this act, the board of trustees of said university are hereby authorized and empowered, by and with the consent and approval and under the direction of the forest preserve board of this state, to contract for the purchase of, and to purchase and to acquire by purchase title to not more than thirty thousand acres of land in the Adirondack forests. The university shall have the title, possession, management and control of such land, and by its board of trustees through the aforesaid College of Forestry shall conduct upon said land such experiments in forestry as it may deem most advantageous to the interests of the state and the advancement of the science of forestry, and may plant, raise, cut and sell timber at such times, of such species and quantities and in such manner, as it may deem best, with a view to obtaining and imparting knowledge concerning the scientific management and use of forests, their regulation and administration, the production, harvesting and reproduction of wood crops and earning a revenue therefrom, and to that end may constitute and appoint a faculty of such school, consisting of one director or professor, and two instructors, and may employ such forest manager, rangers and superintendents, and incur such other expenses in connection therewith as may be necessary for the proper management and conduct of said college and the care of said lands and for the purposes of this act, within the amount hereinafter appropriated. * * *

Sec. 4. Every deed or conveyance of lands acquired under the provisions of this act by said university shall contain in the habendum clause thereof a condition and covenant that the same, and the title to the land conveyed therein and thereby, is taken by the grantee therein named, the Cornell University, under and pursuant to the provisions of this act; and shall also contain an express covenant running with the land and binding upon said university,that the same is conveyed for the uses and purposes in this act provided for, and also an express covenant on the part of said university to convey said lands to the people of the state as hereinafter provided for. Every such conveyance shall be executed in duplicate, one of which shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county where the land is situated, and the other in the office of the secretary of state.’

Section 5 provides in detail for payment by the state of the consideration for the lands so contracted to be purchased.

Sections 6 and 7, as amended in 1900 (pages 641, 642, c. 301), provide for the custody and expenditure of appropriations and proceeds from the sale of timber, the same being under state control.

Sec. 8. Subject only to the powers, duties and responsibilties vested in or imposed upon the trustees of Cornell University by this act, and except as may be inconsistent with this act and the objects and purposes herein provided for, the land so purchased shall be deemed to be and shall be regarded as a part of the forest preserve, so far as may be necessary for the protection of fish, game and forests as prescribed by the fish, game and forest law and the jurisdiction, supervision, powers, duties and responsibilities of the fish, game and forest commission, and of fish and game protectors and foresters, authorized by the fish, game and forest law, except as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall extend and apply to the land so purchased hereunder for the purposes of this act.’

Section 9 reads, in part, as follows: ‘Upon and at the expiration of thirty years from and after the taking effect of this act, all lands and each and every part and parcel thereof, purchased by said university, and paid for by the state under and pursuant to the provisions of this act, shall be by the board of trustees of said university, or its successors, granted and conveyed to the people of the state of New York by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, without further price or consideration therefor, and the same shall thereupon be and become a part of the forest preserve.’

The complaint alleges that the Brooklyn Cooperage Companyand Cornell University are domestic corporations; that on or about December 21, 1898, by its deed bearing date on that day, the Santa Clara Lumber Company conveyed to the defendant Cornell University about 30,000 acres of land in the county of Franklin, state of New York, most of which was then covered with forests; a copy of said deed is annexed to the complaint and made a part of it; that the university shortly thereafter took possession of the lands so conveyed; that the deed was recorded in the office of the clerk of Franklin county and in the office of the Secretary of State. The deed reads, in part, as follows: ‘And this conveyance is taken by the party of the second part upon condition that the same and the title to the land herein and hereby conveyed is taken by said party of the second part under and pursuant to the provisions of chapter 122 of the Laws of 1898, entitled ‘An act to promote education in forestry, to encourage and provide for the establishment of a college of forestry at Cornell University, and making an appropriation therefor,’ and the party of the second part covenants that this conveyance and the title to the land herein and hereby conveyed is taken by said party of the second part under and pursuant to the provisions of said chapter 122, of the Laws of 1898.' Then follows a covenant that the land conveyed to the party of the second part is for the uses and purposes of the said act of 1898, and that the covenant shall run with the land. Following is a covenant that the university will convey to the state in 30 years from the taking effect of the said act of 1898 as therein provided.

It is further alleged that the university accepted the provisions of the act of 1898 (page 230, c. 122); that, after acceptance, and prior to the conveyance, the trustees of the university had created and established a department therein known as and called the New York State College of Forestry,’ being the college referred to in the first section of chapter 122, p. 230, of the Laws of 1898, for the purposes of education and instruction in the principles and practice of scientific forestry; and thereafter and also prior to said conveyance the board of trustees of said university for the purposes of such school and for carrying out the objects of said act, and with the consent and approval and under the direction of the forest preserve board of this state had contracted for the purchase of the land aforesaid. The remainder of the complaint reads as follows: (5) The sole consideration paid for the conveyance aforesaid (other than the considerations, if any, contained or implied in the conditions and covenants of the deed), was the sum of one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars ($165,000.00), which entire sum was paid to the Santa Clara Lumber Company by the Treasurer of the state of New York from moneys in the state treasury.’ The remainder of this section is not material at this time. (6) Thereafter, and on or about May 5, 1900, the defendant Cornell University, and the trustees of said university, entered into a written contract with the defendant Brooklyn Cooperage Company, a copy whereof is hereto annexed as a part of this complaint and marked ‘Exhibit C.’ Said company thereafter constructed one or more factories on or near said land and constructed a railroad through said land, and said university commenced to cut and deliver wood and timber to said company, and thereafter and for a long...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Wander v. Kimmel
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 1914
    ...1 Dillon, Mun. Corps. (5 Ed.), sec. 430; People ex rel. v. French, 46 Hun, 232; People ex rel. v. Andrews, 89 Hun, 452; People v. Cooperage Co., 187 N.Y. 142; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 216 Mo. 47. (b) decision is generally criticized. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Jones, 78 S.C. 445; Association v. W......
  • Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Schenectady Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 14 Marzo 2001
    ...through legislative act or contract with the state or subdivision of the state performs governmental functions. See People v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., 187 N.Y. 142, 156 (1907); see also Stahl Soap Corp v. City of New York, 182 N.Y.S.2d 808, 809 (N.Y. 1959) (New York City is a subordinate gov......
  • MacMullen v. City of Middletown
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Enero 1907
    ... ... City of Mt. Vernon, 87 Hun, 29, 33 N. Y. Supp. 745, in Patterson v. City of Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 129,40 N. Y. Supp. 581, and in Thrall v. Cuba Village, 88 App. Div. 413,84 N. Y. Supp ... People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532, 544;People v. Tweed, 63 N. Y. 207;Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 ... ...
  • Precht v. Howard
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Enero 1907

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT