Case Name: In re Grade-Crossing Com'rs of City of Buffalo
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-06-02
Citations: 74 N.Y. St. Rep. 947
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Grade-Crossing Com'rs of City of Buffalo.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 74
Pages: 947–962

Head Matter:
In re Grade-Crossing Com'rs of City of Buffalo.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Thord Department,
June 2, 1896.)
Eminent domain—Taking land bob street purposes—Consequential DAMAGES.
Laws 1888, chap. 345, section 12, as amended by Daws 1890, chap. 255, provides that if- the grade-crossing- commissioners of the city of Buffalo decide that it is necessary to change the grade of a street, and that property may be injured thereby, or that land shall he taken incident to the change of grade for widening streets, they may apply to the supreme court for the appointment of three commissioners to ascertain the compensation therefor to be paid to the owners of the land taken or which may be injured, and that, after the compensation has been awarded and the amount thereof paid, then all claims and damages to the property shall be extinguished. Held, that such statute does not affect the existing rights of property owners, under the city charter (Laws 1891, chap. 105, § 40G), where part of a lot is taken to widen a street, to compensate for the damage to the residue of the lot; nor does it render necessary a decision by the commissioners that the property will be injured in order to entitle the owner to recover for such injury, or require the owner to institute a separate action or proceeding therefor; hut the entire amount of compensation to which he is entitled, both for land taken and for injury or land not taken, should be awarded in the proceeding by the commissioners.
Parker and Merwin, JJ., dissenting.
Application by the grade-crossing commissioners of the city of Buffalo for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the compensation to he paid to the owners of, and parties interested in, certain lands in the city of Buffalo proposed to be taken by the city of Buffalo, and claimed to be owned by Jennie Wells, A. Judson Wells, and others. From an order confirming the report of the commissioners, the property owners appeal. Eeversed.
Spencer Clinton, for app’lts; McMillan, Gluck, Pooley & Depew (Daniel H. McMillan, of counsel), for New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.; Marcy & Close (Emory P. Close, of counsel), for Jennie Wells and A. Judson Wells; Shire & Jellinck, for H. E. & H. H. Voght; Laughlin, Ewell & Houpt (John Laughlin, of counsel), for J. E. and Caroline Ewell.

Opinion:
HERRICK, J.
is an appeal from an order of the supreme court confirming the. report of the commissioners appointed, upon the application of the grade-crossing commissioners of the city of Buffalo, to assess damages for the taking of land under section 12 of chapter 845 of the Laws of 1888, as amended by chapter 255 of the Laws of 1890, and chapter 353 of the Laws of 1892. In pursuance of their duties, the grade-crossing commissioners deemed it necessary to take Michigan street, in the city of Buffalo, over the railroad tracks which crossed it; and in order to do so it became necessary to build a long approach in suck street, on either side of the tracks, in order to get up to the level of the bridge to be built across them. For that purpose they determined to widen Michigan street where such approach was to be built, and to take a strip of land thirty-one feet in width on each side of the street, from the adjacent owners, the appellants in this base. They also propose to construct in the middle of Michigan street, thus widened, and opposite to the appellants' premises, a solid structure, with perpendicular walls of masonry filed in with earth, as an approach to such crossing; such structure to be fifty-six feet in width, and of the height of thirteen feet and upward, opposite the whole of appellants' premises. That will; leave a space thirty-three- feet in width between such structure and the land of the appellant, after thirty-one feet has been taken from them.
Section 12 of the act under which such grade-crossing commissioners acted provides as follows:
"If the commissioners shall decide that it is necessary for the purpose of carrying out any plan or modification or alteration of a plan adopted by them, that any street shall be closed or discontinued, or that the grade of any street or portion of any street or public ground shall be changed, and that any property may be injured thereby for which the owners or persons interested therein are lawfully entitled to compensation, or that any land shall be taken incident to the changes of the grade of any street, or to widen any street, or in the event that the commission shall undertake the work on the failure of the company or companies to do so, the commissioners, by their chairman, may apply to a special term of the supreme court for the appointment of three commissioners to ascertain the compensation therefor to he paid to the owners1 of, or parties interested in, the land proposed to be taken, or which may he injured."
Pursuant to this section the grade-crossing commissioners applied for the appointment of commissioners, and a commission of three were thereupon appointed by the court. The order for their appointment does not appear in the record, so that we do not know its exact terms, hut assume that it follows the request of the petitioners. Upon the hearing before the commissioners, proof was made as to the value of the strip of land, thirty-one feet in width, which it is proposed to take from the appellants. In addition to such value, the owners offered to show the diminished value of the remainder of the premises by reason of the structure so proposed to be erected in the street, and offered to show that the remainder of the land, "after taking the thirty-one feet for the
proposed improvements herein, will he greatly damaged on account of the structure proposed to he put in Michigan street under and in pursuance of the grade-crossing act and plan." The commissioners excluded all evidence as to such diminished value, and stated "that in making- their awards herein they would exclude from consideration the effect of such proposed improvement or structure as hearing upon the diminished value of the remainder of said premises." Their ruling seems to have been made upon the theory that the improvement in question was but a change of the grade of the street, and that for such change of grade no damages could be awarded against the city, or recovery be had by the property owners. The decision was probably made, as it has been attempted to be supported upon this appeal, in reliance upon the cases of Conklin v. Railway Co., 102 N. Y. 107; 1 St. Rep. 677; Ottenot v. Railroad Co., 119 N. Y. 603; 28 St. Rep. 483; and Rauenstein v. Railway Co., 136 N. Y. 528; 49 St. ep. 893. I recognize the full force and effect of those decisions, and also that compensation for merely a change of grade cannot be obtained by an abutting owner, except by provision of some special statute. Folmsbee v. City of Amsterdam, 142 N. Y. 18; 58 St. Rep. 626. But I do not think those cases, nor that principle of law, are controlling in this case. The cases referred to were cases brought against railroad companies to recover damages for changing grades, and it was held that the railroad companies were acting by authority of, and in place of, the municipal corporation, and, as at common law the municipality was not liable in damages for a change of grade, the railroad company was not; and in the Ottenot Case the judges who concurrenin the decision gave as the principal reason for such concurrence the fact that the plaintiff had another remedy, under the charter of the city. The remedy under the city charter provided for compensation, not by the city, but by the property benefited by the change. This case presents itself to the Court, it seems to me, in an entirely different aspect from that of any of those- cases. Those were actions brought by persons who claimed to be damaged by what the court held tobe simply a change of grade. This is a special proceeding to take from the appellants their property for the purpose of a public improvement which is not merely a change of grade, but for widening a street, and making a general public improvement in which the whole city of Buffalo is interested; and the questions ^presented are, shall the appellants receive all -the compensation for all the injury they sustain by reason of such improvement in this one proceeding? or must they be driven to another proceeding, under the charter of Buffalo, to recover part of such compensation? or does the statute under which these proceedings are taken bar them from recovering, as a part of their damages for taking their property, any compensation for a change of grade? In determining those questions, we must necessarily take into consid eration the nature and purpose of the proceedings, and the law under which they are conducted.
The city of Buffalo is a great railroad center, many lines of railroad entering the city through its .public streets. The number of roads, and the number of streets through which they run and which they intersect, are a continual menace to the lives and safety of the citizens, and necessarily a source of great annoyance and expense to the railroads. Under laws existing before the passage of the grade-crossing law, railroad corporations could obtain, and had obtained, the right of passage through the city, and changed the grade of streets to insure the convenience and safety of the traveling public, as appeal's from the Ottenot Case, supra. And under the charter of the city a property owner could, in a .proper case, obtain compensation for a change of grade. Section 17, tit. 9, chap. 519, Laws 1870. Some of the railroad companies availed themselves of the provisions of the then existing laws to insure safety at street crossings, as appears from the cases referred to, to which a number of others might be added, but the relief thus afforded was totally inadequate. To remedy the evil, it was necessary that there should be some concert of action, and provision made whereby all the railroad companies could be made to co-operate with the city. As a means of providing such remedy, the present law (being chapter 345 of the Laws of 1888, as amended by chapter 255 of the Laws of 1890, and chapter 353 of the Laws of 1892, commonly called the "Grade-Crossing Act") was enacted. The first section of the original law appointed commissioners, who were authorized to enter into contracts from time to time, in behalf of the city of Buffalo, with any railroad company or companies, "for the relief of the city from the obstruction of the strets of tire city of Buffalo by roads crossing the same at grade, upon plans adopted, or to be adopted by said commissioners, as hereinafter provided." The law provides for the adoption of general ¡Diane, and also provides for an apportionment of the expenses of such improvements between the railroad companies and the city at large in proportion to he determined by the commissioners; and ap art of the expenses to be so apportioned are the damages that may be awarded under section 12 of the act. Under the provisions of the act, streets may be widened, property taken, and grades changed, and it provides for the appointment of commissions to award compensation for property taken or injured. It is apparent that it was the intention to confine all claims for injuries caused by such improvements to the proceeding taken pursuant to such act; for it provides that after the compensation has been awarded, and the amount thereof paid or deposited by the city for the benefit of those entitled thereto, "the fee of the lands sought to he taken shall vest in the city, and all claims for damages to the property claimed to be injured shall be extinguished." Section 12. Bor the purpose it. was intended^ to accomplish, it seems to me, this act must be held. to. supersede all pre-existing laws as to manner of procedure, and the forum in which it is to be conducted. And the changes made under it must he regarded as public improvements for the general benefit of the whole city, otherwise there would he no propriety, even if there would be power,—which I doubt,—to malee the expense of such improvements, or any part thereof, a general charge upon the city.
With this general statement of the object of the statute, let us examine the question here presented. Bor the purpose of affording the relief sought, the commissioners adopted a plan which required the widening of Michigan street. That required the physical taking and appropriation of a portion of appellants' property, and the erection in front of the remainder, and in the middle of the street, of the roadway or structure heretofore described. The commissioners of appraisal were required to award compensation for the land taken. What is the measure of that compensation? It is contended on the part of the respondents that, under the literal reading of the statute, no compensation can he .awarded for mere injury to the premises, unless the grade-crossing commissioners decide that, in carrying out their plans, "property may be injured," and apply for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the compensation to be paid by reason of such injury, and that in this case, the grade-crossing commissioners not having decided that any injury would result to the appellants' property, nor asked to have any commission appointed to ascertain the compensation to he paid for any injury to their property, the injury that may result to the remainder of the appellants' prop-erty, or the diminished value thereof by reason of the proposed improvement, cannot be taken into consideration in these proceedings. Under the decision in the Story Case, 90 N. Y. 122, and the cases that followed it, I have very serious doubts whether the right to compensation for injury to property can be left to the determination of any such tribunal as the grade-crossing commissioners. Anything that affects or limits the free use and enjoyment of one's property, or of the easements or appurtenances thereto, is a deprivation or taking of property, within the meaning of the constitution; and he has the right to have a constitutional tribunal pass upon the question as to whether he has been deprived of it, and, if so, what compensation he is entitled to therefor. But, assuming that the grade-crossing commissioners are properly vested with that .power, still I think the interpretation thus sought to he placed upon the statute is too narrow. The statute provides for the decision of the commissioners upon several matters. If they decide "that any street shall be closed or discontinued, or that the grade of any street or portion of any street or public ground shall he changed, and that any property may be injured thereby for which the owners or .persons interested therein are lawfully entitled to compensation," that is the case of injury to property, but when there is no actual, physical talcing or appropriation thereof. Then there is the second class of eases, where there is an actual, physical taking and appropriation of the soil itself, as follows: "Or that any land shall be taken incident to the changes of the grade of any street, or to widen any street." The commissioners have decided in this case "that it is necessary,. for the purpose of carrying out said plan adopted by them, that the lands hereinafter described (appellants' property) shall be taken to widen Michigan street." And they applied for a commission "to ascertain the just compensation to he paid to the owners and parties interested in the land, for taking the same." Having decided to appropriate the land for the purpose of widening the street, the compensation therefor must he determined as in other cases of the appropriation of lands for public purposes. They cannot by any action or nonaction of theirs, change any rule of law, or eliminate from the consideration of the commissioner® of appraisal any element of damage that should otherwise be taken into consideration. "Generally, in taking land, the rule' may be said to be to pay full value of the land taken, at its market price, and no deductions from that value for any purpose whatever. Then, as to the land remaining, the question has been, to some extent, mooted, whether the company should pay for the injury caused to such land by the mere taking of the other property, or whether, in case the proposed use of the property taken would depreciate the value of that which was not taken, such proposed use could be regarded, and -the depreciation arising therefrom he awarded as part of the consequential damages suffered from the taking. I think the latter is the true rule."' Bohm v. Railway Co., 129 N. Y. 576-585; 42 St. Rep. 247. Just compensation for land taken is—First, the full value of the part taken; and, second, a fair and adequate compensation for all injuries sustained by the residue by reason of the changed condition, and the erection of the proposed construction. Newman v. Railway Co., 118 N. Y. 618; 30 St. Rep. 36. "The true rule—the only rule which will do equal justice to all parties—is to determine what will he the effect of the proposed change upon the market value of the property. T he proper inquiry is, what is it new fairly worth in the market, and what will it he worth after the improvement has been made?" Railroad Co. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169, approved in Henderson v. Railroad Co., 78 N. Y. 423-433.
It seems to me that the proposed plan of improvement must he considered as a whole, and the erection of the structure in the street as a part or incident of it; and if such improvement, or any part of it, will diminish the value of appellants' remain-ling property, then that fact should be taken into consideration by ¡the commissioners. It must be borne in mind that this is not an ¡action or proceeding to secure damages or compensation for a mere change of grade, but that it is a proceeding to take from the appellants their property, and that one of the items of damage suffered by them is the proposed change in the street, which we will assume to be a change of grade. Under the law as it has existed in the city of Buffalo since 1870, at least, they are entitled to compensation when they have suffered damages fromtliechange of grado, and there is nothing in the grade-crossing act from which we can infer that it was intended to take any eisting rights. Furthermore, after the passage of the grade-crossing act the same provisions as to compensating property owners for damages sustained by change of grade was placed in the revised charter of Buffalo (section 406, chap. 105, Laws 1891). So that at the time of these proceedings the statute gave property owners a right to compensation for injury to their property sustained by change of grade. But it is said that such compensation cannot be obtained in these proceedings; that it must be sought under the char*ter of the city, by the proceedings therein provided for. I cannot assent to that proposition, for several reasons: First. In taking land for public streets, as in this case, one of the necessary elements of damage is that which may result from a change of grade. One of the reasons given why damages will not be allowed for a mere change of grade, unless permitted by express statute, is that, if the land for the street "became such by dedication, compensation for the easement was expressly waived. If taken by eminent domain, the compensation paid covered all the damages sustained, among which were necessarily embraced such as might flow from a change of grade required for the public use or convenience." Conklin v. Railway Co., 102 N. Y. 107-111; 1 St. Rep. 677, approved in Rauenstein v. Railway Co., 136 N. Y. 528-534; 49 St. Rep. 893. It does not appear whether Michigan street became such by dedication, or proceeding by eminent domain. In either event it does not seem to me that the appellants are excluded from compensation. I do not think the donation of a portion of appellants' lote for street'purposes can be held to be a waiver of any damages resulting from the future taking of a large portion of what remained of their lots after such dedication. Bor, if it was taken under proceedings by eminent domain, do I thing it ©an be held that in that proceeding damages were awarded that would embrace any damages that might result to the remainder of the lots after additional portions of the present lots is to be considered as of no part of them had ever before been either given or taken, away for public purposes; and therefore change of grade, or a possible change of grade, is, under the cases above referred to, a proper—indeed, a necessary—element of damage to be taken inito consideration. Second. That the law under which these provisions are taken was intended to afford the exclusive remedv for all damages sustained; section 12 providing, as heretofore stated, that, upon payment or deposit being made of the compensation awarded, "the fee of the lands sought to be taken shall vest in the city and all claims for •damages to the property claimed to be injured shall be extinguished." Third. That if compensation was to be made for damages caused by this improvement, under the provisions of the charter of Buffalo for eases of change of grade, it would be in conflict with the spirit and intention of the grade-crossing act. By that act it was intended, as we have heretofore seen, to apportion the ex pense of the improvement between the railroads and the city. Under the charter the damages awarded for a change of grade must be assessed upon the real estate benefited. Laws 1891, chap. 105, § 406. If damages, then, should be awarded for the change of grade, under the charter, they would be assessed, nut upon the whole city, but upon the real estate held to be especially benefited by the change of grade. The general benefit derived by the whole city would not be taken into consideratio#, and the railroad companies would not necessarily contribute to pay any portion of the expense.
The order confirming the report of the commission should, therefore, be reversed, and the matter remitted to new commissioners to be appointed by the court, with costs and disbursements •of this appeal to the appellants.