Legal Opinion

Coe v. Schultz

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1866PublishedCited by 12 opinions

jj^OTIOH to continue an injunction.

1Opinion of the CourtSutherland, J.

The defendants, constituting the Metropolitan Board of Health, made an order that the manufacturing of superphosphate of lime, or poudrette, by the plaintiff, at Hunter’s Point, within the metropolitan sanitary district, created by the act of February 26, 1866, be forthwith discontinued until the mode of conducting said manufacture should be so altered as that no odor or fumes could escape into the external air; and further ordered that such order be executed by the Metropolitan Board of Police; and a temporary injunction was granted restraining the execution of said order. The plaintiff, in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. The People v. . Simeon DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  2. Hart v. Mayor of AlbanyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
  3. Denning v. RoomeNew York Supreme Court · 1831
  4. Wetmore v. TracyNew York Supreme Court · 1835

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Matter of Application of JacobsNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  2. First National Bank v. SarllsIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Sol Block & Griff v. SchwartzUtah Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Porter v. RitchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
  5. Regan v. FosdickAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1897

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API