Shaw v. Crawford
New York Supreme Court
"IN EUROS, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Crawford sued Sham and several others, before the justice. Three of the defendants appeared, and the plaintiff declared for damages done ii ' r o to his boards, at the mill of the defendants, on the Battenkill, in Washington county, in November, 1810. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and there was a trial by jury.
Read the full summary
"IN EUROS, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Crawford sued Sham and several others, before the justice. Three of the defendants appeared, and the plaintiff declared for damages done ii ' r o to his boards, at the mill of the defendants, on the Battenkill, in Washington county, in November, 1810. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and there was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved by three witnesses, that the Battenkill had been used for rafting, for above 36 years; and another witness testified that he had known it to be so used for 26 years. It was also proved that the apron of…
1Per curiam
According to the authority of Sir Mathew Hale, and which was cited in Palmer v. Mulligan, (3 Caines’ Rep. 315. 319.) a river not navigable in the common law sense of the term, and though the fee of it belongs to the owners of the adjoining banks, may still be liable to the public uses of rafting and boat navigation, as a public highway. The Battenkill has been used for rafting for twenty-six years and upwards. This was fully proved upon the trial, and no right was set up in opposition to the right founded on this usage. A usage of this length of time will, of itself, grow into a public right,…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- American Co. v. BradfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Gaston v. MaceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Neaderhouser v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
- Armstrong v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.