## Facts

- New York regulated ferry operations by statute, forbidding operation except as authorized and setting a fixed monetary penalty of five dollars for violations.
- Harris held a county-granted right to operate a ferry across Cayuga Lake, which he treated as an exclusive franchise within the relevant area.
- Almy operated a competing ferry service in the same vicinity without Harris’s authorization and allegedly in violation of the statutory scheme.
- Harris claimed Almy’s competing operations disturbed and diminished the value of Harris’s exclusive ferry right by diverting traffic and interfering with the franchise.
- The dispute implicated both regulatory enforcement (the statute’s five-dollar penalty) and a private injury claim (loss from interference with the franchise).
- Later descriptions of the controversy frame it as reflecting tension between protecting exclusive privileges and permitting competition that could lower prices and increase service options.

## Issues

1. Whether a statute that imposes a five-dollar penalty for unauthorized ferry operations makes that penalty the exclusive remedy for interference with a legally granted ferry franchise.
2. Whether the holder of an exclusive ferry franchise may maintain a common-law action for damages against a competing operator in addition to the statutory penalty.
3. Whether statutory regulation of ferries eliminates, by implication, traditional common-law protection for franchise/property interests absent explicit legislative language.

## Decision

- The New York Supreme Court held that the five-dollar statutory penalty did not bar a common-law action for additional damages.
- The court treated Harris’s ferry franchise as a protectable interest that could support a damages action for disturbance by an unauthorized competitor.
- The court approved recovery beyond the statutory penalty where the statute did not expressly declare its penalty to be the sole remedy.
- The judgment for Harris, awarding damages beyond the five-dollar penalty, was affirmed in substance.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory penalty for prohibited conduct does not, without clear legislative direction, displace common-law remedies available to a party specially injured by that conduct.
- A law that penalizes regulatory violations may serve public enforcement goals while leaving intact private actions addressing distinct, individualized harm.
- An exclusive ferry franchise is a property-like right; interference with it can support a common-law action for damages.
- Exclusivity of a statutory remedy is not implied merely because the statute sets a specific penalty; exclusivity generally requires explicit statutory language or necessary implication.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the franchise holder’s ability to recover common-law damages for disturbance of an exclusive ferry right even though the statute provided a fixed penalty for unauthorized ferry operations, treating the statutory penalty as cumulative rather than exclusive absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.


Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1809)