Legal Opinion
In re the Board of Water Supply
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 15, 1913PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Motion" to confirm the thirteenth separate report of Business Damage Commission No. 1.
1Opinion of the CourtHasbrouok, J.
This is a motion upon the part of several persons having claims for damages for decrease in the values of their established businesses, because of the taking of lands for the Ashokan reservoir, etc., to confirm the thirteenth separate Beport of Business Damage Commission No. 1. The petitioner, the city of New York, makes a counter motion to reject such report. Objections are made to part of such report, viz.: to the awards upon claims Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 19, 33, 83 and 84. All of such claims are for damages to boarding-house businesses, except No. 4, which is for a grocery store business, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Howard v. . DalyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Dickinson v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Earle v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Sawyer v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re SeaichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1943
- In re the Board of Water SupplyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Seaich v. Mason-Seaman Transp. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- In re HuieNew York Supreme Court · 1958