Morgan v. King
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion on the part of the defendants to dissolve or modify an injunction. The plaintiff owned a dam, boom, and saw-mill on Raquette river, at what is called Raquetteville, near the Northern Railroad in the town of Potsdam, about five miles below Potsdam village, which they valued at more than $80,000. These mills were built in 1852 and 1853, and the plaintiffs alleged that they were capable of cutting 10,000,000 feet of lumber annually.- They had another boom, dam…
Read the full summary
This was a motion on the part of the defendants to dissolve or modify an injunction. The plaintiff owned a dam, boom, and saw-mill on Raquette river, at what is called Raquetteville, near the Northern Railroad in the town of Potsdam, about five miles below Potsdam village, which they valued at more than $80,000. These mills were built in 1852 and 1853, and the plaintiffs alleged that they were capable of cutting 10,000,000 feet of lumber annually.- They had another boom, dam and saw-mill in Colton, about nine miles above the village of Potsdam. They also owned wild lands on the banks of the…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, J.
The defendants object that the injunction was allowed before the summons was served, or the suit in fact commenced. If they are right, as to the fact and the rule of practice, when they procured the modification, the motion to dissolve was denied without prejudice to their right to renew the motion to dissolve after answer. I think that necessarily» disposed of this preliminary objectionr, for the answer could be of no service in deciding that branch of the motion.
The injunction which the defendants seek to remove, restrains them from “ obstructing the Raquette river by means of any darn,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Canal Commissioners v. PeopleCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Palmer v. MulliganNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Hooker v. CummingsNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Brown v. ChadbourneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Rhodes v. OtisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Waterford Electric Light, Heat & Power Co. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- A. C. Conn Co. v. Little Suamico Lumber Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.