Bruce v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.
New York Supreme Court
MOTION to dissolve an injunction. The defendants were incorporated in 1823 “ for the purpose of cutting a canal and making a complete slack water navigation, between the Delaware and Hudson rivers.”
Read the full summary
MOTION to dissolve an injunction. The defendants were incorporated in 1823 “ for the purpose of cutting a canal and making a complete slack water navigation, between the Delaware and Hudson rivers.” By their charter, they were authorized “ to make, construct and forever maintain, a canal or slack water navigation of suitable width, depth and dimensions, to be determined by the corporation,” also “ all necessary locks, aqueducts, culverts, dams, waste weirs,” Under this charter, the defendants proceeded to construct their canal. For that purpose, a section of about three miles of the Rondout…
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
If the defendants were authorized by their charter to enlarge their canal, they were also authorized to raise the dam in the Eondout creek so as to make that part of their canal navigable for their enlarged boats. The ninth section of their charter authorizes them to enter upon, take possession of, and use all such lands, real estate and streams as should be necessary for the purposes for which they were incorporated, and provides for ascertaining the damages to which the owner of ,any property so taken" might be entitled. By the next section it is declared that “ if any person or persons…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Conkey v. DikeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Crill v. City of RomeNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Selden v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Supreme Court · 1855
- Creanor v. NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Heath v. President of Gold ExchangeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1869
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.