City of Schenectady v. . Furman
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made Hay 8, 1894, which affirmed a judgment' in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit without a jury. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made Hay 8, 1894, which affirmed a judgment' in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Circuit without a jury. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The resolution of April 16, 1889, by the confirmation thereof, is conclusive in this action as to all the facts therein stated and adjudged. They are res judicata. (In re De Peyster, 80 N. Y. 572; In re Amsterdam, 126 id. 164 ; Suprs. v. Briggs, 2 Den.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
This action was brought to recover the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in removing certain alleged obstructions and deposits from Mill creek. where it runs through the lands of the defendants’ testator. Mill creek is a non-navigable, natural watercourse, not a public highway, running through the plaintiff’s boundaries. On the 16th day of April, 1889, the plaintiff’s common council adopted a series of resolutions in and by which they declared that obstructions and deposits existed in Mill creek running through the defendants’ testator’s lands and that such obstructions and deposits' caused…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- City of Schenectady v. FurmanNew York Supreme Court · 1891