Sackrider v. Beers
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. & B. sued S. <§• S. before the justice. The declaration was for diverting the water-course of the plaintiffs, by which the plaintiffs were disturbed in the enjoyment of their grist-mill. The defendants, S. <§• B., pleaded not guilty.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. & B. sued S. <§• S. before the justice. The declaration was for diverting the water-course of the plaintiffs, by which the plaintiffs were disturbed in the enjoyment of their grist-mill. The defendants, S. <§• B., pleaded not guilty. It was proved that the defendants erected their saw-mill and dam, in 1806, across the Delaware river, about fifty, rods above the mill-dam of the plaintiffs, which had been built and used for above 18 years before,. The defendants took the water out of the river at their dam into a race-way on the northwesterly…
1Per curiam
There is no just objection to the recovery of the plaintiffs below, The defendants were answerable in damages *244for the injury to the p1aintiffs~ in the enjoyment of their mill, by diverting the natural course of the water. The defendants had~ no doubt, a right to build a mill on their land; but they must so construct the dam, and so use the water, as no~ to injure their neighbours below, in the enjoyment of the same water according to its natural course. (3 Caines’ Rep. 320.) The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed-
2Cited by9 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Townsend v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Strickler v. ToddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Pratt v. LamsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1861
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.