Pocantico Water Works Co. v. Jacob Brombacher's Sons — 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 925

Majority

p. 925

In the Matter of The Pocantico Water Works Co., Resp’t, v. Jacob Brombacher’s Sons, App’lts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed February 8, 1892.)

Headnote

1. Eminent domain—Water companies—Solvency.

In a proceeding by a water company to acquire water rights, the solvency or insolvency of the petitioner is immaterial, as the law has provided a sufficient remedy for the property owner before his rights can be invaded, and evidence in relation thereto is inadmissible.

3. Same—Maps.

The maps to be filed are only required to indicate the land or rights to he taken, and need not show the location of the petitioner’s works.

Appeal from order appointing commissioners of appraisal and from order confirming their report.

Proceedings to acquire water rights for the use of the petitioner. Defendants claim that it was error to exclude evidence to show that the capital stock of the petitioning company had not been paid in, and that the map did not sufficiently describe the easements to be taken or- show clearly the nature or location of the petitioner’s works.

Hasten & Nichols, for app’lts; E. T. Lovatt, for resp’t.

From a careful consideration of all the facts we are satisfied the orders made' herein must be affirmed. And, first, as to the appointing commissioners.

The petition was proper in form and substance, and no error was made upon the trial of the issues of fact

The solvency or insolvency of the petitioner was not in issue, and the evidence on that subject was properly excluded.

The law provided a sure, sufficient and safe remedy for the defendants before their property could be taken or their rights invaded.

The evidence offered by them as to whether the petitioner had a bank account, or whether all its stock had been taken or its capital increased, was immaterial to the questions to be decided, and was properly ruled out.

As to the objections to the confirmations. First, we are unable to see that the petition is vague, ambiguous or uncertain, either in its allegations or prayer for relief; on the other hand, it seems clear, specific and unequivocal, and the report follows the allegations and the proofs.

Neither can we perceive wherein the maps filed did not comply with the statute.

The object of the map was to indicate the lands to be taken, and in that respect they conformed to the requirements of the statute.

Both orders affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.