Neal v. . City of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered June 25, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at the Monroe Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material,, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered June 25, 1895, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at the Monroe Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material,, are stated in the opinion. Respondent not having shown any pecuniary damage to her alleged water rights in Honeoye creek her complaint should have been dismissed under all the facts and circumstances of this case. (Starr v. Child, 5 Den. 599; Halsey v. McCormick, 13 N. Y. 296; People ex rel. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
The plaintiff is a riparian owner operating a mill upon Honeoye creek, and has brought this action to restrain the defendant from diverting the waters of Hemlock lake from its natural outlet through Honeoye creek.
Hemlock lake is located in Livingston county, about thirty miles from the city of Rochester, and is about seven miles in length with a superficial area of 1,828 acres. Canadice lake is about one-tliird of the size of Hemlock lake and is located about a mile east therefrom. Under natural conditions Hemlock lake is the main source of supply of Honeoye creek. Prior to the year 1875 the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. . City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re BroomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961