Rexford v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1887 |
| Citation | 105 N.Y. 229,11 N.E. 514 |
| Parties | REXFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
A. L. Johnson, for appellant.
D. O'Brien, for respondent.
The plaintiff's demand against the state was dismissed by the board of claims as beyond its jurisdiction, and the correctness of that decision depends upon the meaning and construction of section 1 of the act of 1870. The state can only be sued by its own consent, and for liabilities which it chooses to assume, (People v. Dennison, 84 N. Y. 281;) and this has been expressly held where the cause of action alleged rested upon some misfeasance or nonfeasance, (Lewis v. State, 96 N. Y. 71.) We are referred to no statute which permits a claim to be filed for such an injury as the claimant has suffered, except the act of 1870, (chapter 321.) The later act of 1876, (chapter 444), which constituted the board of audit, and gave it authority to hear ‘all private claims and accounts,’ did not in any manner change or enlarge the liability of the state; and whoever presents a claim against it must show some statute which involves the consent of the state to be answerable before its own tribunals for such claim, or those of a class to which it belongs. The general language of the act of 1870 is broad enough to cover the present case. It permits claims to be filed for damages sustained from the canals, from their use and management, or arising from the neglect of an officer in charge, or from any accident or other matter connected therewith. It ends, however, with a proviso that the provisions of the act shall not extend ‘to claims arising from damages resulting from the navigation of the canals,’ and the case before us has been adjudged to be one of that character.
The claimant reached Syracuse upon a canal-boat which he was navigating, at which place he stopped to discharge some portion of his freight. Having done so, he went to the collector's office to obtain a clearance; his boat meantime going on in charge of others than himself. When the clearance was obtained, he started along upon the berme bank of the canal to rejoin his boat. His route brought him to the abutment of the Warren-street bridge, which stood close to the water, and could only be passed by one following the bank of the canal by climbing up one side, and descending the other. To enable this to be done the state had provided irons fastened to the stones of the abutment, and serving as rungs of a ladder. The claimant began his ascent, passing upward from one iron to another, and, reaching the upper iron, took hold of it with his hands; but the stone to which it was attached had been insecurely fastened, and became loose, and fell out of the wall under his grasp, throwing him to the ground, and injuring him quite severely. For the damages thus sustained he filed a claim against the state for its negligence, or that of its officers in charge. The bridge was a structure built and maintained by the state to carry a highway over the canal. The proof is sufficient to warrant an inference that the street existed for public passage when the canal was built, and that the duty of maintaining the bridge had been assumed by rested upon the state. While the berme bank of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munro v. State
...v. State of New York, 108 N. Y. 205, 15 N. E. 322;Locke v. State of New York, 140 N. Y. 480, 35 N. E. 1076;Rexford v. State of New York, 105 N. Y. 229, 11 N. E. 514;Gates v. State of New York, 128 N. Y. 221, 28 N. E. 373. [5] Section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows recovery for ne......
-
Peck v. State
...11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699;People v. Dennison, 84 N. Y. 272;Corkings v. State, 99 N. Y. 491, 2 N. E. Rep. 454, and 3 N. E. Rep. 660; Rexford v. State, 105 N. Y. 229, 11 N. E. Rep. 514; Gates v. State, 128 N. Y. 221, 28 N. E. Rep. 373, In People v. Squire, 110 N. Y. 666, 18 N. E. Rep. 362, we held......
-
Locke v. State
...within the language of the statute, the state, as the sovereign, is still exempt from liability in any judicial tribunal. Rexford v. State, 105 N. Y. 229, 11 N. E. 514. The jurisdiction of the board of claims under the act of 1883 is the same as that of the canal appraisers under the act of......
-
Arquette v. State of NY
...is caused by negligence on the part of the State or its officials (Sipple v State of New York, 99 NY 284 [1885]; see, Rexford v State of New York, 105 NY 229 [1887] [faulty maintenance of an abutment used by pedestrians]; Hart v State of New York, 192 Misc 492 [Ct Cl 1948] [pedestrian injur......