Case Name: Lakeside Paper Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-11
Citations: 55 A.D. 208
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lakeside Paper Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 208–210

Head Matter:
Lakeside Paper Company, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
Court of Claims decision — the grounds thereof must be gathered therefrom — a false theory stated in the opinion not considered — interest on a claim for trespass runs from the date of its filing.
The grounds of a decision of the Court of Claims must, on an appeal to the Appellate Division, be found in the decision itself and cannot be looked for in the opinion of the Court of Claims; and, where the conclusion stated in the decision is a possible result, as a solution of a question of fact, arrived at by the court after passing upon the credibility of the evidence, the Appellate Division is required to assume that such was the method by which the result was reached, even though a false theory of decision is indicated in the opinion.
Interest allowed in the Court of Claims to a successful claimant for damages for a trespass on the part of the State should be computed from the date, of the filing of the claim.
Appeal by the claimant, the Lakeside Paper Company, from a judgment of the Court of Claims in favor of the claimant, rendered on the 23d day of March, 1900, for the sum of $2,242, with interest from June 26, 1896, except from so much of said judgment as adjudges that the claimant recover of the State the sum of $146, its costs upon the last preceding appeal to the Appellate Division from the judgment rendered by the Court of Claims on January 18,1899
The grounds of the appeal are that the damages awarded are insufficient and contrary to law and the evidence and that incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial evidence upon the subject of damages was received and considered by the court.
This claim was originally tried in 1896, upon which trial the Court of Claims dismissed the claim. Upon appeal this determination was reversed and a new hearing ordered. (See 15 App. Div. 169.) The case was retried in the Court of Claims in 1898, resulting in a judgment for the claimant of $1,692. This judgment was reversed in this court on account of insufficiency of damages. The claim was again heard and resulted in the judgment from which this appeal is taken.
The claimant was the owner of a paper mill upon the outlet of Skaneateles lake. The State owns and controls a dam at the outlet-of the lake by means of which it controls the discharge of the water from the lake into the outlet. During a part of 1892 the-State withheld the water from this outlet and thereby deprived the plaintiff of the power to run his mill, causing the damage for which this claim is made.
Edwin Nottingham, for the appellant.
John C. Davies, Attorney-General and George II. Stevens, Deputy Attorney-General, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
By the settled practice of the courts, the grounds of a decision must be found in the decision itself and cannot be looked for in an opinion. Upon the former appeal the rules of law by which the damage should be measured were enunciated, and the Court of Claims will be presumed to have followed these rules unless it other wise appear from their decision. The result stated in the decision is a possible result as a solution of a question of fact, the court passing upon the credibility of the evidence for the claimant. We are required then upon this appeal to assume that such was the method by which it was reached, and even if we deemed a false-theory indicated in the opinion, the error is beyond our reach.
It appears in the decision, however, that interest upon the damages was awarded only from the date of the first judgment, to wit-, June 26, 1896, and not from the date of the filing of the claim. That the claimant is entitled to interest upon his claim from the date of the filing of the claim seems to have been settled both in this court and in the Court of Appeals and in this very case. (See this case upon the former appeal, 45 App. Div. 114; Wilson v. City of Troy, 135 N. Y. 96, 105 ; Weeks v. State of New York, 48 App. Div. 357.) The authorities cited by the learned judge below are all cases of breach of contract, and in Wilson v. City of Troy (supra)that class of cases is clearly distinguished from cases where the action is brought for a trespass, where it seems to be held that interest should, as a matter of law, be allowed.
This judgment should be modified, therefore, by adding thereto the interest upon $2,242 from January 14, 1893, tó June 26, 1896, and as thus modified affirmed, with costs of this appeal to the claimant.
All concurred.
Judgment modified by adding thereto interest upon $2,242, from January 14, Í893, to June 26, 1896, and as so modified affirmed, with costs of this appeal to the claimant.