Morrison Waite

Name: Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court
Author: Morrison Waite

Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Morrison Waite. It explores elements such as compensation, canal and Indianapolis.

Quotes from Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court (Morrison Waite)

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ To hold that the title passed by mere appropriation, if no claim for damages was made within the two years, would be in effect to decide that if the State entered on land for a particular use and kept possession as against the owner for two years, it got a title in fee whether the property was actually put to the use or not. Such we cannot believe to be the law.
Was there, then, such a canal constructed over and upon the lands in question as the internal improvement act, under which the appropriation was made, contemplated? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ A canal in the sense which that term implies in this connection means a navigable public highway for the transportation of persons and property. It must not only be in a condition to hold water that can be used for navigation, but it must have in it, as part of the structure itself, the water to be navigated ready for use. Such an instrumentality for 'the advancement of the wealth, prosperity, and character of the State' (Rubottom v. McClure, supra) might confer benefits that would be a just compensation for the private property taken for its use ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ The Constitution of the State, adopted in 1816, which was in force when this act was passed, and until all the rights of the State under it had been acquired, contains the following as art. 1, sect. 7: 'That no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without a just compensation being made therefor.'
The town plat of Indianapolis was laid out on lands granted by Congress to Indiana for a seat of government. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ A mill-race carrying water for hydraulic purposes is not enough. There must be a canal fitted in all respects for navigation and open to public use, before the benefits can accrue to the owner which are under the law to overcome his claim for damages. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ The board of internal improvements located the Central Canal in this street throughout its entire length. From the southerly end of the street the location extended in that direction across what was then known as outlots 121, 125, and 126. These lots were owned, 126 by one Coe, and the other two by Van Blaricum. During the year 1840 or before, the canal was actually built, filled with water, and to some extent navigated from Broad Ripple, a point on the west fork of the White River, about nine miles north of Indianapolis, to a lock in Missouri Street, at Market Street. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ We proceed now to apply this rule to the facts. It is not contended that compensation in money was made for any of the land in dispute. Van Blaricum claimed money, but the tribunal to which, under the statute, his application was referred decided against him. In effect he was told, in answer to his application, that the benefits he would receive from the construction of the canal would be 'just compensation' to him for his property taken. The town and the lot-owners adjoining Missouri Street made no claim for compensation. Neither did Coe, the owner of lot 126. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ In all cases where persons felt aggrieved or injured by what was done, a claim could be made for damages, which were to be appraised in a way specially provided for, but in making the appraisement the benefits resulting to the claimant from the construction of the work were to be taken into consideration. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court

“ It may be that, should any person claiming under the company remain in possession of the land after a default in such payment, or in erecting the works, he would be considered as a trespasser ab initio.' So far as we have been advised, these cases are still the law of Indiana, and they are certainly supported by high authority. ”

Morrison Waite

Summary

Quotes from Kennedy v. Indianapolis — Opinion of the Court (Morrison Waite)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature