Case Name: CITY OF LOCKPORT v. TONAWANDA IRON & STEEL CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-01-29
Citations: 151 N.Y.S. 923
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF LOCKPORT v. TONAWANDA IRON & STEEL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 151
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
CITY OF LOCKPORT v. TONAWANDA IRON & STEEL CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
January 29, 1915.)
Eminent Domain (§ 124 ) — Damages.
On condemnation of land, damages cannot be based on a possible future use of the land, or a possible enhancement in its value, by the subsequent deepening of a river channel.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. §§ 332-344; Dec. Dig. § 124.*]
Appeal from Special Term, Niagara County.
In the matter of the application of the City of Lockport to acquire land for waterworks. From an order confirming the report of the commissioners of appraisal, assessing the damages of the Tonawanda Iron & Steel Company, the city appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, LAMBERT, FOOTE, and MERRELL, JJ.
Mortimer A. Federspiel, of Lockport, for appellant.
Hoyt & Spratt, of Buffalo, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
• PER CURIAM.
The commissioners in their decision state, in effect, that their award includes nothing for the supposed damage or injury to defendant's tract of land on the east side of the river road, or for any proposed use thereof for a steel plant in connection with defendant's land west of said road.
We think the evidence limited to the lands west of the river road does not justify so large an award as the commissioners have made. It was error, we think, to receive evidence as to defendant's ownership of said easterly parcel, or as to its proposed development thereon of a steel plant. The possible future deepening of the river channel as far down as defendant's lands is too remote and speculative to be the basis of any award.
The order confirming the commissioners' report and granting an extra allowance of costs should be reversed, together with the judgment entered thereon, said report set aside, and a new hearing and appraisal had before new commissioners, with costs to the appellant to abide the final award of costs.
The commissioners' award as arbitrators, as stated in their report, remains in full force and effect.