Perkins v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 1889 |
| Citation | 21 N.E. 397,113 N.Y. 660 |
| Parties | PERKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from board of claims.
D. S. Richards, for appellant.
Charles F. Tabor, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In 1872, and prior thereto, the claimant owned some land in the city of Binghamton, adjoining the Susquehanna river. In that year the state raised the height of its dam across the river at that place from two to three feet, in consequence of which water was caused to flow into and upon the claimant's land, and he claimed that it was thus damaged to the amount of $12,000. Upon the hearing before the board of claims he gave evidence by himself and two other witnesses, tending to show that his damages were from $5,000 to $10,000 and upwards. The board awarded him $1,300, and he has appealed to this court, specifying in his notice of appeal, as the ground upon which the appeal is taken, that the undisputed facts and evidence in the case entitled him to an award for a larger amount than the one made.
This claim was heard under chapter 205 of the Laws of 1883, and under that act the commissioners of the board of claims are required to take testimony in the vicinity where the damages are alleged to have occurred, and personally to view the premises alleged to have been damaged. On the cross-examination of the plaintiff as a witness he testified that he purchased the land damaged in 1864, for from $250 to $300 per acre. One witness on the part of the state testified that the land was worth $100 per acre in 1871, and that there was no difference in its value since. It is said that the evidence of this witness does not relate to the land in question. We cannot know that. The evidence was admitted, apparently relates to the land, and we are bound to consider it. The requirement that the commissioners of the board of claims should view the premises was inserted in the statute for some purpose. The view which they are required to make is not a mere idle ceremony. It is intended to aid their judgment on the question of damages, and to enable them to appreciate the evidence and give to it its proper weight. They are not bound to be governed entirely by the evidence of witnesses, but they may base their award, and must base it, upon the knowledge derived from that view and the evidence of the witnesses. Such has been the uniform practice under similar statutes. In re William & Anthony Streets, 19 Wend. 678, 695; In re Railroad Co., 5 Lans. 298; In re Boston Road, 27 Hun, 409; In re Transit Co., 47 Hun, 396; In re City of Buffalo, 1 N. Y. St. Rep....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Len v. Home Depot
...otherwise would lack the ability to properly test a single paper estimate for bias, inaccuracies or incompetency (cf. Perkins v. State , 113 N.Y. 660, 21 N.E. 397 [1889] ). Thus, § 1804 creates a nice compromise between the simplicity to admit estimates and the assurance that the estimates ......
-
United States v. Village of Highland Falls, 150.
...bill now pending and will not be binding on either party if said bill fails to be passed by the present Congress." 2 Perkins v. State of New York, 113 N. Y. 660, 21 N.E. 397; Matter of Thompson, 121 N.Y. 277, 24 N.E. 472; City of Syracuse v. Stacey, No. 1, 45 App. Div. 249, 61 N.Y.S. 165; H......
-
In re Proceedings to Open Sixth Street; Kansas City
...is not grossly inadequate and confiscatory, but reasonable and proper, and it is without right in law to complain thereof. Perkins v. State, 113 N.Y. 660. The jury in case was composed of freeholders, who, under the charter viewed and inspected the premises. Therefore, adjudications as to t......
-
In re Newtown Creek Waterway, Boroughs of Brooklyn & Queens
...but technical knowledge of construction costs and proper depreciation write-offs could not be obtained thereby. In Perkins v. State of New York, 113 N.Y. 660, 21 N.E. 397, 398, this court said: ‘The fact that the commissioners are required to view the premises, and to act to some extent upo......