Sweet v. City of Syracuse
New York Supreme Court
Action by William A. Sweet against the city of Syracuse and others. Plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why defendants should not be enjoined pendente lite.
1Opinion of the CourtChurchill, J.
The question winch underlies several of the questions in this case is that of the relation of the state to the waters of Skaneateles lake. Chapter 9 of the first part of the Revised Statutes which'took effect January 1, 1828, defined the Brie canal as follows: “The navigable communication connecting the waters of Lake Brie with those of the Hudson river, and all the side cuts, feeders, and other works belonging to the state, connected therewith, shall be known and designated by the name of the ‘Brie Canal.’” It further declared the Erie canal to be completed, and that the powers and authority…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. City of Rochester v. BriggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Ayers v. . LawrenceNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Silsby Manufacturing Co. v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Metzger v. . Attica and Arcade R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Comstock v. City of SyracuseNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sweet v. City of SyracuseNew York Supreme Court · 1892