Waterloo Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Shanahan

In 1798 Samuel Bear became the owner of land on the south side of the Seneca river, along which he dug a race to a mill. This race leaves the river at the larger or eastern end on Big Island. Seneca river flows from the outlet of Seneca Lake at the village of Geneva easterly through the villages of Waterloo and Seneca Falls, and finally empties into the Oswego river. It divides the village of Waterloo, one ward being south of the river, the other north. The land on the north side of the river was patented by the state to John McKinstry in 1802, and contained 610 acres, which was conveyed by him to Elisha Williams on the 3d of December, 1807. Before the 6th day of April, 1813, Williams constructed a race or canal for hydraulic purposes, and

The lands owned by Bear on the south side amounted to 100 acres, who continued its owner until 1826. On the 6th day of April, 1813, the Seneca Lock Navigation Company was incorporated. Chapter 144 of the session laws of 1813.

On the 20th of April, 1825, the legislature authorized the construction of the Cayuga and Seneca canal. The act provided for the purchase by the state of all the rights and title of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company. Chapter 271 of the session laws of 1825. The state simply acquired the rights of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company and no others.

The plaintiff was incorporated in 1836, and is the owner of all the water power and privileges which Williams had in his life time, with the exception of one run of stone. Its property, consisting of large buildings and machinery, is valued at $250,000, employs 300 men in the manufacture of woolen goods. Its average insurance is about $350,000. A protection of the property insured requires the use of force pumps propelled by water.

Bear race is now owned by the defendants, Sweet, Mongin & Cook. Their mill is at the end of it, and their title was derived by mesne conveyances from Bear. The mill is on Washington street in Waterloo, and the race draws its water from the south side of Seneca river. They obtained title three or four years ago,’ paying for the mill, lands and water privileges, $9,000. .

The canal of the Seneca Lock Navigation Company was originally of the width of forty feet, and three or four feet deep. In 1840 an act was passed authorizing improvements pf the Cayuga and Seneca canal, which expressly provided that the rights and interests of persons owning or holding hydraulic privileges on the outlet should not bo injured by such improvements. Prior to 1857 this cang.1 was enlarged and deepened until its present-dimensions are seventy feet on the surface, with a depth of from seven to nine feet. There has been no increase in size or depth since 1857, but by the previous enlargement the amount of water taken into the canal was greatly increased. The plaintiffs now use 28-30 of the water power and its appurtenances.

Before 1888 Bear race always remained at its original dimensions, twenty feet wide and three and one-half deep. Neither Bear race or the Seneca river, at the place where the race leaves it, constitute any portion of the canal system of the state of New York. The race and lands on each side of it are private property, now owned by the defendants, Sweet, Mongin & Cook. The plaintiff since it became the owner of its property has always claimed'the right to use, and has used for its own purposes, all the surplus waters flowing from the canal that supplies their mills, not necessary for navigation. This user has continued for more than twenty years before the commencement of this action, and was always acquiesced in by the canal authorities.

This act was passed by a three-fifths vote, but did not receive a two-thirds vote of the members of either house of the legislature. In pursuance of the provisions of this act, the defendant Shanahan, who was and still is superintendent of public works, made a contract with the defendants, Fuller and Albaugh, for the performance of the work specified in the act. They were engaged in its construction and had the work partly completed when this action was commenced. If the contract is finished, Bear race will be considerably more than thirty feet wide and deeper than at present, and will draw from the Seneca river an amount of water much larger than now, and will greatly diminish thes surplus in the canal to which the plaintiff is entitled.

On the trial the facts above stated,with others, were found by the court. The court also determined, among other things, as questions of law, that chapter 325 of the Laws of 1888, appropriating the moneys for the improvements of Bear race, was a local act, and not having -received a two-thirds vote of either house of the legislature, was unconstitutional and void ; also that the purpose for which the race was to be improved was not public but private, and that by the improvement the water power of the plaintiff would be seriously diminished and impaired, and its value greatly reduced ; also that the effect of the act is to take the property of the plaintiff for a private purpose, and was void for that reason.

There is no question about Seneca river being a public highway. If the trial court was right in its conclusion that the act of 1888 was void, all difficult questions are eliminated from the case. The pivotal facts involved in a determination of this question are within a narrow compass. As between the plaintiff and the state there was neither doubt or confusion until that act.

In the Silsby Manufacturing Company v. The State of New York, 104 N. Y., 562 ; 6 N. Y. State Rep., 463, chapter 144 of the Laws of 1813, above cited, and chapter 271 of the Laws of 1825, were construed. The court held that the state having acquired “ the stock, property and privileges belonging or appertaining to ” said company and only that, has no authority to use any more of the waters of said river than are necessary for the purposes of navigation, and has the right to use them only for that purpose. Eo question arises upon the evidence as to Bear race or its ownership, including the lands on each side; it was private property. But chapter 325 of the Laws of 1888 not only provides for excavating the channel of the river, but also for dredging and excavating

In the People v. Allen, 42 N. Y., 378 , construing chapter 880 of the Laws of 1869, it was decided upon facts no stronger than those appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case, that the act was for local purposes, and not having received a two-thirds vote, was unconstitutional and void. It is impossible to distinguish the principle decided in that case from the one involved in the case at bar. To the same effect are People v. Supervisors of Chautauqua, 43 N. Y., 10 ; Matter of Deansville Cem. Ass’n., 66 id., 569, where it was also held that the question whether private property is sought for public use is i, judicial one to be determined by the courts. On the same point is Matter of Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Railway Co., 108 N. Y., 375 ; 13 N. Y. State Rep., 690.

The principle involved in this case has been adjudged in numerous decisions arising upon a great variety of cases. Jordan v. Woodard, 40 Me., 317 ; West River Br. Co. v. Dix, 6 How., U. S., 507-547

The trial court logically considered and determined this branch of the case. The use of this money was obviously for a private and not public purpose.

The learned attorney-general in his exhaustive brief argues with force and cogency that Shanahan, as superintendent, being a public officer, could have had no adjudication against him in this action. His contention would be unanswerable if he was acting in that capacity. When it appears that there is no law authorizing this contract, the fact of his occupying a public position is immaterial. People of New York v. Canal Board of New York, 55 N. Y., 390 ; Tribune Ass’n v. The Sun, 7 Hun, 175 .

In this case the act under which the superintendent made the contract being unconstitutional and void, the superintendent could not invoke its protection in contracting and making improvements to the prejudice of the plaintiff. He was acting outside of his official authority, and his official position is no protection.

The. learned counsel for the appellant argues with much pertinacity and ability that although the act as framed might fall short of being a public one, yet as its recitals indicate that it was only part of a legislative scheme, subsequent laws would make it complete for public purposes; that therefore it was not private, but ¡Dublic.

One difficulty with the argument is that there is nothing in the act to show that there will be future legislation; another and perhaps more serious one is that public policy, in the very nature of things, is adverse to piecemeal legislation of that character. If an act, on its face, which is not public can be upheld because future acts may make it so, great mischief might result. Constitutional prohibitions might be evaded and overthrown by gradual and indirect approaches. None of the rulings of the trial court to which exceptions are taken involve questions which would change the result.

The defendants, Sweet, Mongin & Cook, insist upon appropriating the supposed rights of the state for their benefit. It is enough to say that thero being no controversy between the state and the plaintiff, these defendants are in no position to avail themselves of the benefit of such supposed rights.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Dwight, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.