Donelly v. Vandenbergh
New York Supreme Court
3 Johns. 27 (1808)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
In 1803, the New York legislature established a stage-wagon route between Albany and New Jersey. Seven particular persons were named as having authority to operate stage wagons, with any competing stage-wagon operator to be compelled to pay $500 to the named seven. The seven named persons split up responsibilities. One of the named seven, Donelly (plaintiff), did not follow through on his responsibilities, and soon, two of the other seven, Tremble and Vanderhoff, authorized Vandenbergh (defendant) to use Vandenbergh’s stage wagon on the route. Vandenbergh, however, was not one of the seven people named by the legislature, although Vandenbergh had already used his stage wagon on sections controlled by Tremble and Vanderhoff because Tremble and Vanderhoff assigned their right to do so to Vandenbergh. However, this time, Donelly filed suit against Vandenbergh for the $500 penalty. The trial court found for Donelly. One of the principal issues was whether the route had been officially divided among the seven named persons because if the route division had officially occurred, that seemed to support a view that Vandenbergh was outside his authority, whereas if the route had not been officially divided, as a tenancy in common, any tenant, including Tremble and Vanderhoff, had authority to allow Vandenbergh to run the route.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
Dissent (Spencer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.