Attorney General v. Cohoes Co.
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to dissolve an injunction restraining a purpresture, or an unauthorized appropriation of the embankment and waters of the Erie and Champlain canals near their junction at the Cohoes.
Read the full summary
This was an application to dissolve an injunction restraining a purpresture, or an unauthorized appropriation of the embankment and waters of the Erie and Champlain canals near their junction at the Cohoes. The information, which was sworn to by the superintendant of that part of the canal, stated that the embankment in question, which was connected with the dam across the Mohawk river, was a necessary work to maintain the elevation of the water in the canal and the pond above the dam; that the Cohoes company, by its agents and workmen had entered upon the embankment and lands belonging to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The fact is not denied by the answer, that the embankment in question is a part of the Erie and Champlain canals, and as such belongs to the people of the state. The question is not properly presented in this stage of the suit whether the several matters set up in the .answer by way of avoidance, form any defence to the suit. The matters thus set up are not strictly responsive to the information ; and even if they were they are not sworn to in such a manner as to authorize a dissolution of the injunction thereon without further proof, or until the Attorney General has had an…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Davis v. . the Mayor, C., of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Attorney General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- United States v. DebsU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1894
- Flynn v. . TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.