Majority
Headnote
The general railroad laws of this State are to be construed harmoniously; as respects their various provisions, and strictly, as to the rights of the parties..The New York and Boston Railroad Company, incorporated under our general laws, seek to acquire title to.a route through three certain parcels of land in Yonkers and West Farms, owned and occupied respectively by Godwin, Peck and Valentine, against the consent of the owners, under and by virtue of the provisions of the general railroad laws of this State. These laws are to be construed harmoniously, as respects their various provisions ; and strictly, as to the rights of the parties. By conforming to the provisions of these laws, corporations may acquire a title in fee to .lands necessary for their purposes, against the will of the owners; but such corporations must conform to such provisions, before they can acquire any title or rights thereto. A fair construction of these laws will require a chronological fulfillment of their provisions. Under section 28 railroad corporations may enter upon the lands or waters of any person to examine, survey and select the most advantageous route. Under section 22 they shall, before constructing any part of their road into, or through any county, file a map and profile of the route, certified as directed, in the register’s office, (or county clerk’s office, as the case may be,) and give written notice to the actual occupants of the land over which the route is designated, of the time and place such map and profile were filed, and that the route passes over the land
I find, as a matter of fact, that the company have been engaged in constructing their road in Westchester county for a period of fifteen months, and that they have never served the written notice as specifically required by the 22d section of the act. It was, however,-contended by the counsel of the company, that it was not necessary to serve that notice before applying for the appointment of commissioners of appraisal, and that the petition itself was a sufficient compliance, as to that notice. Neither of these grounds can be sustained. There is no sentence in the
The motion for the appointment of commissioners of ' appraisal is a separate proceeding, and independent of the section requiring the service of the written notice of location of the route; for it would be absurd either to appoint commissioners to appraise the value of property which could not be definitely described, or to describe property which might not come under appraisal at all; and one of these incongruous conditions would arise, if the motion for the appointment of commissioners could be made-before the right of the property owner to a change of route was exhausted. The orderly course is to have the property which is to be condemned expressly defined and specified in the ordér appointing the commissioners, and this cannot be done until the owner’s right, under section 22, to effect a change in the railroad route, has either lapsed or been exercised. The numerical order of the sections of the statute, which was insisted upon, is of no consequence. The preliminary survey under section 28, is to be made, before the application for commissioners of appraisal under section 14. A similar necessity requires the notice under
I find that the profile is not on the map, but on a separate sheet, which does not give the land owners’ names; so that only an unnecessarily laborious and scientific measurement could connect and identify the profile with the map at any given parcel of land. The better course would be to follow the suggestion of section 31, subdivision 39, (of the general railroad act of 1850,) and put the profile upon the map; then the profile could be located upon any parcel of ground with facility, and its object, of showing the grade, cut, embankment and slope on every parcel, be at once attained.
I find that the map is not a substantial - compliance with the statute. The object of the statute is to secure a public record of the boundaries, location, grade and direction of the railroad, and to enable those interested in the property to be condemned or conveyed, to describe the route by metes and bounds through any and every parcel of land. This the map on file utterly fails to accomplish. The map consists of a sheet on which is laid down only one line, showing the general course of the railroad, but whether this line is an exterior, a center given, or any other certain line, does not appear. The aréa of land required for the route is nowhere - marked. The Harlem river, which is near the route intended to be designated, is nowhere shown. The Spuyten Buy vil and Port Morris Kailroad, which is also near it, is not shown. Many of the highways crossed are.not laid down. Hot one of the property owners could tell, by inspecting the map, where the route
That the objection, that the map does not show the extent of land taken, nor anything more than a line indicating
[Kings Special Term,
December 4,1871.
Gilbert, Justice.]
That the railroad company must show that the land is covered by the authorized location, is the doctrine in Hazen v. Boston and Maine R. R. ( 2 Gray, 574 ,) and in Stone v. Cambridge, ( 6 Cush. 270 .) By the 14th section of the act, the map is to be, or be equivalent to, a survey; which means “ the act by which the quantity of a piece of land is ascertained; or the paper containing a statement of the courses, distances and quantity of land.” By the same section, the petition is to state that the company “ have located their road according to such survey.” ' But the map filed contains no quantities, and is not in any sense equivalent to a survey, and it would consequently be impossible for the company to show that the lands sought to be acquired are covered by the authorized location.
In respect to Valentine’s land, the company made him no offer, and made no attempt whatever to agree with him for its purchase. The statute requires this to be done, and only gives the right to proceed in invitum when such an attempt has proved a failure.
Therefore, as this company has not complied with the necessary pre-requisites for obtaining the appointment of commissioners of appraisal, it has not secured the right to have the property condemned, against the opposition of its owners.
The proceedings are accordingly dismissed, with costs.
Cases cited
- In re New York & Jamaica Railroad 21 How. Pr. 434 p. 91