Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in-the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on trial. (Reported below, 19 Hun, 47.) This action was brought to restrain the defendants from removing or in any way interfering with certain beds or deposits of marl upon lands owned by the corporation defendant. The facts, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in-the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on trial. (Reported below, 19 Hun, 47.) This action was brought to restrain the defendants from removing or in any way interfering with certain beds or deposits of marl upon lands owned by the corporation defendant. The facts, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The marl was personal property and could not be claimed to be a part of the realty. (Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 564; Smith v. Benson, 1…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
The marl, the subject of this controversy, was excavated by the State, between the years 1851 and 1853, in making a channel to turn the water of the Canandaigua river for canal purposes, through lands then owned by one Torrey. The marl underlaid a stratum of muck about four feet in depth, and in removing the soil for the excavation, the muck was thrown out, and the underlying marl was afterward excavated and deposited over the muck on the banks of the cut.. The mounds of earth made by the deposit remained undisturbed until 1865. They were covered with annual growths of grass and weeds, and in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Corning v. . Troy Iron and Nail FactoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Green v. ArmstrongCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Griffith v. GriffithNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Kellam v. . McKinstryNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Vorebeck v. RoeNew York Supreme Court · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Mulry v. . NortonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Rowlee v. DietrichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Cross v. Weare Commission Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1894
- H. Hiller & Co. v. JonesMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Slattery v. . SchwanneckeNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.