The People v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Carlaftes

    132 A.2d 515 (N.J. 1957)   Cited 3 times

    Later decisions proceeded to define the nature of this special jurisdiction which New York might exercise exclusively over a portion of New Jersey's territory, and New Jersey over New York's lands. In People v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 42 N.Y. 283 ( Ct. App. 1870), the Attorney-General of New York sought to abate as nuisances various piers and other erections which had been placed in the Hudson River and New York Bay by the defendant, extending out from the New Jersey shore and allegedly authorized by this State. The decision very clearly demonstrated that the jurisdiction ceded to New York under Article III was not that total and complete jurisdiction typically concommitant with sovereignty. Rather,

  2. In re Gutkowski

    33 A.2d 361 (N.J. 1943)   Cited 4 times

    "* * * But we agree with the state courts that have been called on to construe that part of the agreement, that the purpose was to promote the interests of commerce and navigation, not to take back the sovereignty that otherwise was the consequence of article 1. This is the view of the New York as well as of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, and it would be a strange result if this court should be driven to a different conclusion from that reached by both the parties concerned. Ferguson v. Ross, 126 N.Y. 459; 27 N.E. Rep. 954; People v. CentralRailroad Co., 42 N.Y. 283. This opinion is confirmed by the judgment delivered by one of the commissioners in State v. Babcock, 30 N.J.Law 29 [ 1 Vr. 29]. Again, as was pointed out by the state court, the often-expressed purpose of the appointment of the commissioner (sic) and of the agreement to settle the territorial limits and jurisdiction must mean, by territorial limits, sovereignty, and by jurisdiction something less. It is suggested that jurisdiction is used in a broader sense in the second article, and that may be true so far as concerns Bedlow's and Ellis islands. But the provision there is that New York shall retain its `present' jurisdiction over them, and would seem on its face simply to be intended to preserve the status quo ante, whatever it may be.

  3. Delaware River Comm'n v. Colburn

    310 U.S. 419 (1940)   Cited 57 times
    In Colburn the Court unequivocally answered this question in the affirmative, holding that `the construction of such a [bi-state] compact sanctioned by Congress by virtue of Article I, § 10, cl. 3 of the Constitution, involves a federal "title, right, privilege or immunity" which when "specially set up or claimed" in a state court may be reviewed here on certiorari under § 237(b) of the Judicial Code [the predecessor of § 1257(3)].' 310 U.S. at 427, 60 S.Ct. at 1041.

    The Court is without jurisdiction because the question presented for review is the construction of a state statute. People v. Central R. Co. of N.J., 42 N.Y. 283, 294; 12 Wall. 455; Adams v. Russell, 229 U.S. 353; Kenney v. Craven, 215 U.S. 125. The meaning and application of an interstate compact do not present a federal question.

  4. Central R.R. Co. v. Jersey City

    209 U.S. 473 (1908)   Cited 20 times

    Article 4 of the compact between the States of New York and New Jersey, as construed by the courts, gives to New York merely the power of executing its quarantine law and laws relating to passengers as to vessels passing over the waters of the Hudson River, and by necessary implication reserves to New Jersey every other political or governmental jurisdiction and dominion, and all prerogative, proprietary, and sovereign rights in and over the waters of the Hudson River and the lands lying thereunder and with the boundary fixed by the agreement. People v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J., 42 N.Y. 283. The action of the State of New Jersey in respect to its lands lying under its navigable waters within its boundaries, through various statutes passed by the legislature, constitutes a continued exercise and assertion of its ownership.

  5. The Rosemary

    26 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1928)   Cited 1 times

    This is the view of the New York as well as of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, and it would be a strange result if this court should be driven to a different conclusion from that reached by both the parties concerned. Ferguson v. Ross, 126 N.Y. 459, 463 [ 27 N.E. 954]; People v. Central R.R. Co., 42 N.Y. 283. This opinion is confirmed by the judgment delivered by one of the commissioners in State v. Babcock, 1 Vroom [30 N.J. Law] 29. Again, as was pointed out by the state court, the often expressed purpose of the appointment of the commissioner and of the agreement to settle the territorial limits and jurisdiction must mean by territorial limits sovereignty, and by jurisdiction something less.

  6. New Jersey v. State of Delaware

    552 U.S. 597 (2008)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that Delaware's CMP contains an LNG terminal ban approved in 1979

    The 1834 accord was the subject of significant litigation in the years leading up to and surrounding the adoption of the 1905 Compact. Report 67. Notably, New York's highest court concluded Article Third of the 1834 interstate agreement meant what it said: New Jersey had "exclusive" jurisdiction over wharves extending from and beyond its shore; therefore New York lacked authority to declare those wharves to be nuisances. See New York v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 42 N. Y. 283, 293 (1870); Report 67. C

  7. New Jersey v. New York City

    283 U.S. 473 (1931)   Cited 34 times
    Ordering New York City to stop dumping garbage off New Jersey coast

    Not every case involving a State as plaintiff and a citizen of another State as defendant, is justiciable under Art. III, § 2 of the Constitution. New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U.S. 328; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 398-399; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 480-481. The courts of both the States of New Jersey and New York, as well as of other localities, have always held that they had no jurisdiction over controversies like this. Hill v. Nelson, 70 N.J.L. 376; Karr v. N.Y. Jewell Filtration Co., 78 N.J.L. 198; Watts v. Kinney, 6 Hill 82, 87; People v. Central R. Co., 42 N.Y. 283; Sprague Nat. Bank v. Erie R. Co., 40 A.D. 69, 72; Brisbane v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 205 N.Y. 431, 434; Allen v. Connecticut River L. Co., 150 Mass. 560; Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U.S. 105, 108. The plaintiff failed to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence that conditions on plaintiff's beaches and in its waters were due to defendant's acts.

  8. Devoe Manufacturing Company

    108 U.S. 401 (1883)   Cited 17 times

    A dispute existed for a long time between the States of New York and New Jersey respecting the boundary line between them as to property and jurisdiction. The history and circumstances of this dispute, some particulars of which are to be found in the reports of the cases of State v. Babcock, 1 Vroom, 29; People v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 42 N.Y. 283; and Hall v. Devoe Manufacturing Company, 14 F. 183, are not material to the determination of this case, in the view we take of it, any further than to show what was the subject-matter of the dispute. For the purpose of having it settled, the State of New Jersey filed a bill in equity in this court against the State of New York, in February, 1829.

  9. Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

    956 F.2d 383 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    Id. at 33-34. In People v. Central Railroad, 42 N.Y. 283, writ of error dismissed, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 455, 20 L.Ed. 458 (1870), the New York Court of Appeals, reviewing the plain language of the Compact, came to the unexceptional conclusion that New York had no jurisdiction over the wharves and piers attached to the New Jersey shore. Neither that case nor any other case cited by the government interpreting the Compact deals with jurisdiction over filled-in lands in general or Ellis Island in particular.

  10. Columbia Nastri Carta v. Columbia R

    367 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    Under the New York cases, the district court had jurisdiction to issue the order. It is true that early New York cases appeared to hold that New York courts lacked power to order action outside New York. See, e.g., People v. Central R.R. of New Jersey, 42 N.Y. 283, 303-306 (1870); cf. Beale, The Jurisdiction of Courts Over Foreigners, 26 Harv.L.Rev. 283, 292-94 (1913). But as other courts abandoned this doctrine in favor of the view that they may in appropriate cases order action outside their jurisdictions, see Recent Decision, 42 Colum.L.Rev. 479 (1942), New York courts followed suit.