Town of Palatine v. Canajoharie Water Supply Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, The Canajoharie Water Supply Com-pony and another, from an order of- the Supreme Court; made at the Fulton Special Term and entered in the office of -the clerk of the county of Montgomery on the 10th day of September, 1906. The action was brought by the towns of Palatine and Canajoharie -and the commissioners of highways of these towns, joined as plaintiffs against the defendants, to 'restrain the latter from laying water pipes over a'highway bridge…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants, The Canajoharie Water Supply Com-pony and another, from an order of- the Supreme Court; made at the Fulton Special Term and entered in the office of -the clerk of the county of Montgomery on the 10th day of September, 1906. The action was brought by the towns of Palatine and Canajoharie -and the commissioners of highways of these towns, joined as plaintiffs against the defendants, to 'restrain the latter from laying water pipes over a'highway bridge between-the two towns. The defendants raised the question by demurrer, that the commissioners of highways were…
1Opinion of the Court
Chester, J.:
We disagree with the contention of the appellants’ counsel that the Special Term was without power to amend the judgment under the circumstances presented here. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the judgment of this court, had settled the law of this case, that the commissioners of highways were improperly joined with their respective towns as plaintiffs in the action. If the Supreme Court, acting through a Special Term, or an Appellate Division in an appropriate case, is powerless to make the judgment of the Court of Appeals effective because of highly technical objections…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Audley v. TownsendAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909