R.G. Packard Co. v. Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park

Decision Date14 January 1916
Citation240 F. 543
PartiesR. G. PACKARD CO. v. COMMISSIONERS OF THE PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Mark Ash, of New York City, for plaintiff.

George A. Blauvelt, of New York City, for defendant.

MAYER District Judge.

The action is to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract entered into between plaintiff and the defendant Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park. The demurrer interposed by defendant raises the sole question as to whether this court has jurisdiction of the defendant in this action; it being claimed that the defendant is, to all intents, the sovereign state of New York, and therefore cannot be sued in this court, by virtue of the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

By chapter 170 of Laws of 1900, the state of New York provided for a commission, the purpose of which was to select and locate lands in the Palisades on the Hudson river, in order to establish a state park, and thereby preserve the scenic beauty of the Palisades. Under the act, a board of commissioners was created a body politic, with power to sue and be sued. Sections 2 and 5 provide, among other things, as follows:

'Sec 2. Such board of commissioners, and their successors, are hereby created a body politic, with power to sue and be sued, to use a common seal, and to make and adopt by-laws to regulate its proceedings. Such board shall annually choose from among its members a president, a vice president, treasurer and secretary and appoint such other officers and such other employees, including patrolmen, as it may deem necessary to carry out the purpose of this act and may employ counsel. ' (As amended by Laws 1915, c. 562.) 'Sec. 5. The said board of commissioners shall have the power to acquire, maintain and make available for use as a public park the lands located as aforesaid, and for this purpose shall have power to take in fee or otherwise, by purchase, gift, devise or eminent domain, the said lands, or any of them, and any rights, interests and easements therein, and to receive by gift, contribution or bequest moneys to be used in acquiring or improving the said lands or any of them; deeds of conveyance for such lands shall be made to said board of commissioners by its corporate name, and it shall be the duty of said board to preserve, care for, lay out and improve the said park and to make rules for the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Taylor v. New Jersey Highway Authority
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1956
    ...the same effect are Ward v. Board of Regents of Kansas, &c., College, 8 Cir., 138 F. 372, 70 C.C.A. 512; Packard Co. v. Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park, D.C., 240 F. 543; Utah Const. Co. v. State Highway Commission, D.C., 16 F.2d 322; Board of Trustees, etc. v. Bruner, 175 Ill. 3......
  • The State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Bates
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1927
    ... ... 390; ... Railroad Commissioners v. Pensacola & A. Railroad ... Co., 24, Fla ... 1 Met. (Ky.) 174; R.G. Packard Co. v. Pal ... Interstate Park, 240 F. 543; ... v. Commissioners of ... the Palisades Interstate Park, 240 F. 543-544; ... Bromwell ... ...
  • Borough of Sayreville v. New Jersey Highway Authority
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • April 24, 1961
    ...same effect are Ward v. Board of Regents (of) Kansas, etc., College, 8 Cir., 138 F. 372, 70 C.C.A. 512; Packard Co. v. Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park, D.C., 240 F. 543; Utah Const. Co. v. State Highway Commission, D.C., 16 F.2d 322; Board of Trustees v. Bruner, 175 Ill. 307, 51 ......
  • State v. Bates
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1927
    ...do the things to be done. U'Ren v. State Board of Control, 31 Cal. App. loc. cit. 12, 159 P. 615; R. G. Packard Co. v. Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park (D. C.) 240 F. 543-544; Bromwell Brush & Wire Co. v. State Board of Charities and Corrections (D. C.) 279 F. 440 et seq.; Wat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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