Legal Opinion
Seeley v. City of Amsterdam
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 15, 1900PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Demubbeb to two separate defenses set forth in the answer.
1Opinion of the CourtHoughton, J.
The plaintiff is a riparian owner. Above his premises the defendant, or its water commissioners, constructed a dam and formed a reservoir for the supplying of the city of Am* *124sterdam with water, materially diminishing the stream flowing through plaintiff’s premises. Of course, there is a remedy in some form for the damages thus sustained.
The first defense pleads that the defendant did not do the acts complained of, but that they were done by its board of water commissioners, and that if plaintiff has any action, it is against that board and not against the city itself.
By chapter 101 of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Maxmilian v. . MayorNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Ehrgott v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Almy v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Calking v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Walsh v. Trustees of New York & Brooklyn BridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kaplowitz v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1907