Brass v. Rathbone
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Albert Rathbone and others, from an -order of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and •entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 2d day of January, 1896, continuing in force a preliminary injunction granted ex jpa/rte, and also from an order modifying said order «entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of January, 1896. The complaint in this action alleged, among other things: “ That the (plaintiffs’)…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants, Albert Rathbone and others, from an -order of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and •entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 2d day of January, 1896, continuing in force a preliminary injunction granted ex jpa/rte, and also from an order modifying said order «entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of January, 1896. The complaint in this action alleged, among other things: “ That the (plaintiffs’) premises above described receive now, and for many years last past have received, the water supply from the water board of…
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam, J.:
By section 19, chapter 235 of the Laws of the State of Rew York of 1850, the water commissioners of the city of Albany were authorized to “ make such by-laws or regulations for the preserva*80tion, protection and management of the said water works, and the use and control of the water, as may be deemed advisable, and which, when ratified or approved by the common council, shall have the same force and effect as any law or ordinance by them enacted.” And by section 29 of the same act it is provided, among other things, that the observance of said rules may be enforced by cutting off…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McEntee v. . Kingston Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Frothingham v. BensenNew York Supreme Court · 1897