Burt Olney Canning Co. v. . State
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal,' by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 4, 1919, which unanimously affirmed a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The claimant sues the state for the flooding of its lands.
In 1840 an aqueduct forming part of the Erie canal was built by the state across Oneida creek two and a half miles from the lands which since 1898 have been occupied by the claimant’s factory. In the aqueduct, is a culvert with two openings, having a total capacity of 532 square feet, designed as a passage for the waters of the creek. Two bridges and an embankment span the creek at intervals between the aqueduct and the factory, but their openings are larger. The culvert in the aqueduct is insufficient in the high waters of spring and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bellinger v. . the New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Chipman v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Durant Land Improvement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- O'Donnell v. . City of SyracuseNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Sipple v. . the StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Doralee Estates, Inc. v. Cities Service Oil Company, and Third-Party v. Mgo Corp. And Monticello Gas & Oil Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Goodman v. Del-Sa-Co Foods, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Nieman-Irving & Co. v. LazenbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Burrows Paper Co. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1940
- Town of Vienna v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.