Legal Opinion

Carhart v. State

New York Court of Claims

Decided October 15, 1908No. 6730PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Claim against the State for damages for overflowing the claimant’s lands.

1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.

The claimant in this case was a tenant, in 1902, on a farm situated in the' town of Manlius, on Limestone creek, about half a mile north of the Erie canal. Limestone creek passes underneath the canal, which is carried over the creek by means of an aqueduct. There are three gates in the aqueduct for discharging the surplus water of the canal into the creek. Connected with the canal and the creek is a canal feeder, which feeds the canal near the aqueduct, The feeder is about half a mile long, It }s *14connected with the creek by means of gates, the water of the creek being held back by a dam.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carhart v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  2. Ostrander v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  3. Ostrander v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Shorter v. Champion Home Builders Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991
  2. Stevens v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1909
  3. Hurd v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API