Van Bergen v. Van Bergen
New York Court of Chancery
[ * 273 ] THE bill stated, that the plaintiff was seised, in common with the defendant, of 6£ acres of land, with two falls mill-seats thereon, and a grist-mill also, on Coxsackie creek. That on the 8th of December, 1808, he agreed with the defendant for a partition, which was made, and the west half of the land, with the upper fall and mill-seat, were set off to the plaintiff, and the residue, with one fall and mill-seat, and the mill, set off to the defendant.
Read the full summary
[ * 273 ] THE bill stated, that the plaintiff was seised, in common with the defendant, of 6£ acres of land, with two falls mill-seats thereon, and a grist-mill also, on Coxsackie creek. That on the 8th of December, 1808, he agreed with the defendant for a partition, which was made, and the west half of the land, with the upper fall and mill-seat, were set off to the plaintiff, and the residue, with one fall and mill-seat, and the mill, set off to the defendant. That the parties released to each other, &c. That in 1809 the plaintiff erected a sawmill on his upper part, with a dam. That he has…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I have no doubt of the jurisdiction cases private can them to be abated, as well as restrain them from being erected. (Coulson v. White, 3 Atk. 21. East India Co. v. Vincent, 2 Atk. 83.) But this is not to be done until the opposite party has been heard. Lord Hardwicke said, in the case of Ryder v. Bentham, (1 Vesey, 543.) that the Court never makes an order, on motion, to pull down any thing, though it will, sometimes, on motion,' order a thing going on to be stayed.
Motion denied.
2Cited by9 opinions
- City of Sanford v. AshtonSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
- Carmichael v. City of TexarkanaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1899
- Coker v. DawkinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1883
- Earl v. De HartSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1856
- Fisher v. RankinNew York Supreme Court · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.