Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mahler agt. The Norwich and New York Transportation Company.

Such must

tory except that over which jurisdiction had been acquired by grant, treaty or possession. It cannot be claimed that jurisdiction over Long Island Sound was ever acquired by treaty or grant, as it was not involved in any manner in any of the treaties by which the limits of the province were settled, and the boundaries in the patent of King Charles Second to the Duke of York, do not include it (Revisers' Notes, 5 Edmonds' Statutes at Large, 252). It is difficult to conceive how it could be the subject of possession, but it is certain that it has always been open as a part of the high seas to the use of all nations, and that the state has never attempted to restrict such use, or to exercise any control over it. Moreover, it is apparent from the boundaries of the counties adjoining it, that the state does not claim any jurisdiction over it. The division of the state into counties is of the whole state. have been the intention of the legislature in making it, and it will be found on a careful comparison of the boundaries of the state with those of the counties, that all of the border counties are made to extend to the limits of the state. The counties of Queens, Suffolk and Westchester, are not exceptions, for as it is manifest that it was intended that the counties of the state should embrace all of its territory, their boundaries being accurately given, must be considered as explaining any ambiguity in the general description of the state, and that must be so construed as to harmonize with their descriptions. This can be done without violating its language. The line from Sandy Hook to Lyon's Point, is required to be so run as to include the islands, and this can be done by following low water mark along the southern and eastern shore of Long Island to the point nearest to Gardner's Island, thence in a straight line to low water mark of Gardner's Island, thence by low water mark around Gardner's Island to the point where the line from Long Island strikes it, returning thence by that line to Long Island, thence following low water mark along the

Mahler agt. The Norwich and New York Transportation Company.

northerly shore of East Hampton to the point nearest to Shelter Island, thence in a straight line to Shelter Island, thence following low water mark along the easterly shore of Shelter Island to the point nearest to the town of Southhold, thence in a straight line to low water mark on the southerly shore of Southhold, thence following the same easterly to the point nearest to Plumb Island, thence in a straight line to Plumb Island, thence following low water mark along the southerly side of Plumb Island to the point nearest to the Gull Islands, thence in a straight line to Great Gull Island, thence following low water mark along the southerly side of Great Gull Island to the point nearest to Little Gull Island, thence in a straight line to Little Gull Island, thence following low water mark along the southerly side of Little Gull Island to the point nearest to Fisher's Island, thence in a straight line to Fisher's Island, thence following low water mark around Fisher's Island to the straight line by which it was reached, and thence returning to Little Gull Island by the same straight line, and following low water mark on the northern side thereof to the point where it was reached by the straight line from Great Gull Island, thence returning to Great Gull Island by the said straight line, thence following low water mark along the northerly side of Great Gull Island to the point where it was reached by the straight line from Plumb Island, thence returning to Plumb Island by the said. straight line and following low water mark along the northerly side of Plumb Island to the point where it was reached by the straight line from Long Island, thence returning to Long Island by said straight line, thence following low water mark along the northerly side of Long Island to the northerly boundary line of the county of New York, thence along the same to low water mark on the southerly side of Westchester county, and thence following low water mark along the southerly side of the main land of Westchester county to Lyons' Point, but always leaving the said main

[blocks in formation]

Latourette agt. Clark.

land in a straight line at the point nearest to any of the islands included in the county, following low water mark around such islands, and returning by the same straight line to the main shore. The boundaries thus ascertained are those indicated by the description of the counties, and they are entirely consistent with the statutory description of the state. They show the locus in quo to be without the limits of the state.

The territorial limits of the state are not enlarged by the dominion which the sovereign of the shore has over the sea as far as cannon shot will reach, which is generally considered a marine league. That dominion is conceded. to him by the law of nations only for his safety, and to give him jurisdiction in cases governed by the law of

nations.

The judgment should be for the defendants on the dismissal of the complaint.

SUPREME COURT.

LATOURETTE agt. CLARK.

An action of tort, brought by the citizen of one foreign state against the citizen of another foreign state, for alleged injuries committed in one or both of those states, cannot be maintained in the courts of this state. Our courts have no jurisdiction of such an action.

New York General Term, January, 1866.

Before BARNARD, P. J., CLERKE and INGRAHAM, Justices.

By the court, CLERKE, J. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a 'citizen of Missouri, against the defendant, a citizen of Connecticut, for combining and conspiring with other citizens of the latter state to defraud him by false representations. The defendant was one of several direc

Latourette agt. Clark.

tors of an insurance company doing business in Hartford, Connecticut, under a charter from that state, entitled The Protection Insurance Company, having agencies at various places throughout the United States, especially at St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff alleges, that relying on the representations of the defendant and other directors of the company, that it was in a sound condition, and possessed of a large capital, wholly unimpaired, of not less than $200,000, he insured in said company certain property at St. Louis, October 18, 1853; that the same was injured. by fire November 11, 1853; that he has performed all the conditions of the policy; that the company failed September 7, 1854, and has ever since continued insolvent, and has never paid plaintiff's loss, and that he has thereby suffered damage in the sum of $4,149.10. This, then, is clearly an action of tort, brought by the citizen of one foreign state against the citizen of another foreign state, for alleged injuries committed in one or both of those states. Shall we entertain jurisdiction of actions originating under such circumstances, and between such parties? In other words, shall we sustain the judiciary establishments of our state for the purpose of compromising the disputes and redressing the wrongs of litigants' who owe no allegiance. or duty to it.

This question, or rather questions nearly similar to it, have been presented in a few previous instances to our courts. There are, undoubtedly, several reported cases where they have entertained such a jurisdiction; but the first of which I have any knowledge, in which the question was directly presented and passed upon, is Gardner agt. Johnson (14 J. R. 134). There it was indeed asserted by the justice who delivered the opinion in that case, that this court may take cognizance of a tort committed on the high seas, on board of a foreign vessel, both parties being citizens of the country to which the vessel belongs, but that it should rest in the sound discretion of the court to

[ocr errors]

Latourette agt. Clark.

afford jurisdiction or not, according to the circumstances of the case; and as it did not appear that the plaintiff in error, who was master, and the defendant, who was a seaman of the vessel, did not intend to return to their own country, it was held that the defendant in error ought to have been left to seek redress in the courts of his own country on his return, and the judgment below was reversed. In Johnson agt. Dalton (1 Cow. 543), the same principles are asserted, stating that the courts should decline interference in ordinary cases, but as the defendant in error, on whom the assault had been committed, had been legally discharged from the vessel in this country, the court upheld the jurisdiction. In Smith agt. Ball (17 Wend. 323), which has been frequently quoted in relation to this subject, it was only decided that an action for an injury to the person, committed beyond the territorial limits of this state is transitory, and may be brought in any court of common pleas in this state, but it did not appear that either party was a resident of another state, but on the contrary, it may be very safely inferred that both parties were residents of this state, who crossed the Susquehanna together from Tioga county in this state, to Tioga county in Pennsylvania, where the one made an assault upon the other. Of course this decision can have no application to the question under consideration. Malony agt. Dows (8 Abb. Pr. 318), decided in the New York common pleas, at a trial term before Judge DALY, is much more analogous. There it was expressly decided that the courts of one state have no jurisdiction between citizens of another state for damages for personal torts, committed within the jurisdic tion of another state. I have not been able to ascertain from the report in that case, whether the plaintiff had become a citizen of this state before he commenced his action. If he had, it would have been a stronger case than that before us, and would have gone further than I should be inclined to go. If a citizen of one state should

« PreviousContinue »