New York Law Review

Tag: 1865

  • People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N.Y. 461 (1865): State Ownership of Navigable Riverbeds

    33 N.Y. 461 (1865)

    In New York, the State owns the beds of navigable rivers, allowing the State to use the waters for public purposes like canal construction without compensating riparian owners.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the State of New York must compensate a riparian landowner for diverting water from the Mohawk River for use in the Erie Canal. The court held that the Mohawk River is a navigable river owned by the State, allowing the State to use its waters for public projects without compensating adjacent landowners. The court reasoned that the common law rule granting riparian owners ownership to the center of a non-navigable stream did not apply to large, navigable rivers in New York, and historical legislative actions supported the state’s claim of ownership.

    Facts

    The relator (landowner) owned land adjoining the Mohawk River. In 1841, the State constructed a feeder canal that diverted a significant amount of water from the Mohawk River to supply the Erie Canal. This diversion diminished the water power available to the relator’s mill, which had been operating since 1801. The relator’s title derived from a land patent describing the boundary as “down the stream thereof as it runs.” The landowner sought damages from the canal appraisers, who denied the claim because the State asserted ownership of the Mohawk River.

    Procedural History

    The relator sought a writ of mandamus from the Special Term to compel the canal appraisers to assess damages. The Special Term granted the writ. The General Term reversed the judgment, leading the relator to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the State of New York must compensate a riparian owner for diverting water from the Mohawk River for use in the Erie Canal, based on the landowner’s claim to ownership of the riverbed.

    Holding

    No, because the Mohawk River is a navigable river, and the State owns the bed of navigable rivers in New York, giving it the right to use the water for public purposes without compensating riparian owners.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court rejected the common law rule that riparian owners possess title to the center of a non-navigable stream. The court emphasized the unique physical and economic conditions of New York, arguing that this common law principle was ill-suited for large, navigable rivers. The court noted that New York’s legislature had consistently asserted ownership over the beds of navigable rivers, demonstrated by granting portions of the Mohawk River bed to the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company in 1792. This act was seen as an explicit assertion of state ownership and control. The court reviewed past decisions and legislative actions, concluding that New York had established a policy of owning and controlling its navigable waterways for public benefit, regardless of whether the tide ebbed and flowed. The court stated that attempting to apply English common law would be futile when considering the “great fresh water rivers of this continent.” The court relied on *The Canal Appraisers v. The People*, 17 Wend. 571, noting it was universally regarded to have settled the law. While the case of *Commissioner of Canal Fund v. Kempshall*, 26 Wend 404, had caused doubts as to the continuing precedential value of that case, the court found that it would not impact the decision in this case. The court quoted *Furman v. City of New York*, 5 Sandf. 33 as an authority on the idea that the king and, by extension, the state had ownership *tam aquae quam soli* or both water and soil. The court ultimately concluded that the State, as sovereign, possessed the right to use navigable rivers for public purposes without compensating riparian owners for any incidental losses. This right was deemed essential for the State’s ability to develop and maintain its canal system.

  • Salter v. Ham, 31 N.Y. 321 (1865): Establishing a Partnership Requires Intent and Shared Risk

    Salter v. Ham, 31 N.Y. 321 (1865)

    A partnership requires the intent of the parties to share in both the profits and losses of a business venture; a mere loan agreement with repayment tied to profits does not create a partnership.

    Summary

    Salter sued Ham for an accounting, claiming they were partners in a medicine business. Salter based his claim on a written agreement where he loaned Ham $500 to purchase materials, and in return, Salter would receive one-quarter of the net profits from the medicine’s manufacture and sale. The court held that the agreement did not establish a partnership. The court reasoned that the agreement was merely a loan with repayment tied to profits, lacking the essential elements of a partnership, such as shared risk of loss and joint control. Therefore, Salter was not entitled to an accounting of Ham’s business.

    Facts

    In December 1855, Salter and Ham entered into a written agreement. Salter agreed to loan Ham $500 for one year. Ham assigned bills and accounts against his agents as security for the loan. Ham stipulated to invest the loan in materials needed to manufacture his medicine, Dr. Ham’s Invigorating Spirit. Ham was to manufacture and sell the medicine, paying Salter one-quarter of the net profits. The parties operated under this agreement for about two months before abandoning it. Salter later claimed a partnership existed and sought an accounting of Ham’s business profits until 1862.

    Procedural History

    Salter brought an action in the Supreme Court, seeking an accounting and distribution of assets, claiming a partnership with Ham. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. Salter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the agreement between Salter and Ham created a partnership, inter sese, entitling Salter to an accounting of Ham’s business.

    Holding

    No, because the agreement was a mere loan arrangement and lacked the essential elements of a partnership, such as shared risk of loss and intent to create a partnership.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court stated that whether a partnership exists between parties is determined by their intention. The court analyzed the agreement of December 1855. It concluded that the agreement was a loan for a fixed period, secured by assigned accounts, with profits serving as a form of interest. The court noted that the agreement did not impose the duties or confer the powers of a partner upon Salter. There was no joint ownership of partnership funds, and Salter was not to participate in the losses. "The $500 loaned under the agreement was not a contribution to the capital of the firm as such; nor was it put into the business at the risk of the business. The plaintiff was, in no event, to participate in the losses of the adventure." The court found the relationship to be that of creditor and debtor, not partners. Therefore, Salter was not entitled to an accounting. The court emphasized that Salter was seeking a share of the general business assets, not just profits derived directly from the $500 investment which had already been abandoned.