Legal Opinion
Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettibone Cataract Paper Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1920PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Actions for injunctions.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
These actions involve substantially the same facts in each case, and have, therefore, been tried together. The decision in one involves the decision of the other.
These actions were brought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the construction of a tunnel under the properties of the defendants for the purpose of carrying off and utilizing certain waste waters after the same had been used by the defendants for generating power for their respective plants, as provided in certain contracts with the defendants made January 1, 1900. The contract made with each defendant is practically…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Palmer v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Franklin Telegraph Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. . StephensNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Irvine v. . New York Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Kelso v. KellyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1860
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1953
- Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1953