Belknap v. Belknap
New York Court of Chancery
[ * 464 ] THE plaintiffs are seised of lands in Newburgh, adjoining the east side and south end, and including part of a small lake or pond, called the “ Great Pond,” lying on both sides of the Passaick creek, or outlet of the pond ; and have, on the outlet, about 70 rods distant from the pond, a grist-mill and a saw-mill.
Read the full summary
[ * 464 ] THE plaintiffs are seised of lands in Newburgh, adjoining the east side and south end, and including part of a small lake or pond, called the “ Great Pond,” lying on both sides of the Passaick creek, or outlet of the pond ; and have, on the outlet, about 70 rods distant from the pond, a grist-mill and a saw-mill. One of the plaintiffs, C. B., is also seised of a farm of 200 acres, with valuable mills and factories thereon, worth about 20,000 dollars, situate about four and a half miles from the pond, and one and a quarter mile from the Hudson, which he holds in trust for the other…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The bill is filed to quiet the plaintiffs in the possession and enjoyment of their mills and other improvements, on the Passaic creek or outlet of the great pond, near Newburgh, and to stop the defendants from lowering the outlet. The proceedings complained of were instituted by the defendants, under the act of the 9th of April, 1804, relative to the draining of swamps and bog meadows in the counties of Orange and Dutchess; and the principal question in the case is, whether the act gives authority to interfere with the property of the plaintiffs, in the manner proposed.
[ * 469 ]
2Cited by21 opinions
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Jerome v. RossNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Richmond v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- English v. SmockIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
- Touzalin v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.