Sauer v. City of New York

Background

An owner of land and buildings at the corner of One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Street and Eighth Avenue sued the city of New York after the city built a legislatively authorized viaduct to connect to a bridge. The viaduct stood on columns in the street and materially impaired the owner’s access to the property and the free admission of light and air. The owner argued the law authorizing the viaduct provided no compensation for those injuries; New York courts denied relief, finding the owner had no such easements against ordinary street improvements.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the state-court judgment denied any right under the Federal Constitution — specifically, whether the viaduct was a taking without compensation or an impairment of an implied contract with the city. The Court said the key question was whether the owner ever had easements of access, light, or air as against public street improvements. Relying on New York law and prior state decisions, the Court explained that easements exist against exclusive private uses (like an elevated railroad used only by a company) but not against changes or structures erected to promote general public travel. Because the state courts had found no such easements, the Court held no federal right was denied and affirmed the judgment.

Real world impact

Cities may adapt streets for public travel — including viaducts and approaches — without owing compensation to nearby owners for impaired access, light, or air, so long as the structure serves general public travel. Owners retain remedies when a street is perverted to an exclusive private use, but not for ordinary public street improvements; disputes about these limits remain matters for state courts.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the case was like earlier elevated-railroad decisions and Muhlker, saying the viaduct effectively destroyed the owner’s easements and should have required compensation, emphasizing the practical loss of access and light.