Hoyt v. Carter
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought to restrain the defendant from diverting a stream of water running near what is called the Hollow road, in the sixth wtyd of the city of Troy, so as to prevent its running in its natural channel to a building lately erected by the plaintiff for an India rubber factory.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to restrain the defendant from diverting a stream of water running near what is called the Hollow road, in the sixth wtyd of the city of Troy, so as to prevent its running in its natural channel to a building lately erected by the plaintiff for an India rubber factory. The complaint stated that the plaintiff was the owner in fee of the land upon which he had erected his factory, that over, along and across his said land and adjoining the south side of the Hollow road, which was the northern boundary of the plaintiff’s land, there flowed and ran a valuable stream of…
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
There can be no doubt, I think, that when Wis-wall, acting on behalf of the estate of Morgan, conveyed to Warren the premises now owned by the plaintiff, it was the intention of the parties to that conveyance to secure .to the owners of the mill, the use of the water and the right to divert it in the manner in which it was then conducted from the dam to the mill. This is the clear legal effect of the reservation in the deed. It became binding upon the grantees and their assigns as an implied covenant. As against these parties, the owners of the mill secured to themselves and their assigns…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Case v. HaightCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boyce v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Munro v. MerchantNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Hutchins v. LaveryNew York Supreme Court · 1912