Jones v. Cuyler
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff, about the middle of June, 1848, commenced an action in this court against the defendant, to recover damages for erecting a dam in a stream, and thereby causing the water to set back upon and flow the lands of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, about the middle of June, 1848, commenced an action in this court against the defendant, to recover damages for erecting a dam in a stream, and thereby causing the water to set back upon and flow the lands of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. In June, 1849, the cause was referred by order of the court, on filing a stipulation signed by the attorneys of the respective parties consenting thereto, to three persons to hear and determine the same. The cause was noticed for trial before the referees, and on the day appointed for the trial, one of the referees…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, T. R. Strong, J.
Prior to 1845, the provisions of the statute for referring causes were confined to actions on contract. They allowed a reference to three impartial and competent persons, and, with the consent of the parties, to a sole referee. (2 R. S. 383, § 89. Laws 1836, p. 767 § 1, 2.) If an action not referrible under that statute, was referred by consenf *579of parties it was thereby discontinued, and the reference was a submission to arbitration. The court had no control over the report in such a case, but judgment might be entered upon it, if the agreement of reference…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Van Alen & Van Alen v. AmblerNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Green v. PatchinNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Beardsley v. DygertNew York Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ott v. . SchroeppelNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Healy v. GilmanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1866
- McCleary v. McClearyNew York Supreme Court · 1883