New York City v. Pine
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. This was a suit commenced in-the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by the appellees, as plaintiffs, for an injunction, restraining the city of New York from maintaining a dam on the West Branch of Byram River and diverting the waters thereof from their natural flow through the farms of plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. This was a suit commenced in-the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by the appellees, as plaintiffs, for an injunction, restraining the city of New York from maintaining a dam on the West Branch of Byram River and diverting the waters thereof from their natural flow through the farms of plaintiffs. The facts are these: Byram River is a non-navigable stream of fresh water flowing into Long Island Sound. Tracing its source up stream from the Sound, for a short distance it forms the boundary…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
Many interesting questions are involved in this case, but we think it unnecessary for the present at least to decide more than one. We assume, without deciding, that, as found by the Circuit Court, the plaintiffs will suffer substantial damage by the proposed diversion of the water of the West Branch. Also, without deciding, we assume that, although the West Branch above the dam and all the sources of supply of water to that branch are within the limits of the State of New York, it has no power to appropriate such water or prevent its natural flow through its accustomed channel into the State…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Galliher v. CadwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Roberts v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Jackson v. StevensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- Harrisonville v. W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Hurley v. KincaidSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Institution for Savings in Newburyport & Its Vicinity v. PufferMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & LuxSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- T. J. Fountain, Jr., Individually and Doing Business as Fountain Oil Company v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.