City of Schenectady v. Furman
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Schenectady county. Action by the city of Schenectady against Robert Furman to recover the cost of grading a water-course running through defendant’s land. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, P. J.
This action is brought to recover the expense of work done by the plaintiff, through its superintendent of streets, in removing alleged obstructions and deposits in that part of a certain stream called “Mill Creek,” which runs through defendant’s land. The stream is a natural water-course, not navigable; and the part in question is wholly within defendant’s land. The bed of this stream, therefore, is his, and he is the riparian owner. As such he has a right to the use of the water, being also under obligations to the owner below him in respect to the manner of its use. The plaintiff is not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stuart v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Carpenter v. . Manhattan Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Glen & Hall Manufacturing Co. v. HallCommission of Appeals · 1874
- People of State of N.Y. v. . DennisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- United States v. GomezSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
3Cited by5 opinions
- McGrath v. MaxwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Levy v. SchreyerNew York Supreme Court · 1897
- City of Schenectady v. . FurmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- City of Schenectady v. FurmanNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Hudson River Power Transmission Co. v. United Traction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904