Research

Biographical Sketch

The Jackson and Perkins Company engaged in the business of growing fruit trees, as well as ornamental trees and shrubs. One of the company's nurseries was located in the vicinity of the Clyde River and the Erie Canal in the town of Galen, Wayne County. After flooding of the Clyde River in 1912 caused damage to property and vegetation owned by Jackson and Perkins, the company filed a claim against the state. Jackson and Perkins Company alleged that the state unlawfully damned an existing flood control channel while excavating for the Barge Canal in 1910 and failed to construct a replacement. The result was that flood waters, normally diverted away from the company's property, flowed directly into the nursery. The claim was tried and Jackson and Perkins Company recovered compensation sought for damages suffered in 1912.

The Jackson and Perkins Company property was flooded again in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. Alleging that the state had not taken any action to remedy the situation that had caused the initial flooding in 1912, the company filed two additional claims for damages suffered in 1913 and 1914/1915. These claims were tried together before the Court of Claims in Rochester and Syracuse during the months of October and November 1917.

Claim 1094-A, seeking damages for flooding in 1913, was dismissed due to Jackson and Perkins' failure to file notice of intention and failure to file the claim in due time as required by law. Claim 2705-A, alleging state liability for flooding in 1914 and 1915, was settled in favor of the company and damages were awarded in 1923. Chapter 788 of the Laws of 1926 excused and waived the failures to file notice of intention and to file in due time and granted the Court of Claims jurisdiction to try Claim 1094-A. This claim was settled later that year and Jackson and Perkins Company was once again awarded damages to be paid by the state. Jackson and Perkins Company went on to appeal for interest lost in the interim before state legislation reactivated Claim 1094-A. This appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department in December of 1930.