Legal Opinion

Gray v. State

New York Court of Claims

Decided July 15, 1921No. Claim No. 2424-APublishedCited by 5 opinions

•Claim for damages resulting from defective canal feeder.

1Opinion of the CourtWebb, J.

As this court has reached a conclusion in this case somewhat different from the arguments presented by counsel, painstaking as they were, a brief statement of the grounds for our conclusion seems advisable.

Nearly a century ago the state constructed and since that time has maintained a feeder connecting Tonawanda creek with Oak Orchard creek in the town of Alabama, Genesee county, N. Y., the purpose of which feeder was to augment the volume of water in the long, western level of the Erie canal. Incidentally, that construction has enriched the legal literature during the intervening period.…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hiles v. . FisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Plate v. . New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. MacFarland v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1941
  2. Martos v. MartosCity of New York Municipal Court · 1954
  3. Howard v. Arthur Murray, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  4. Kawalis v. KawalisNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  5. People v. Monex International Ltd.New York Supreme Court · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API