Hoeft v. Seaman
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion to continue an injunction. The plaintiffs are the owners of a floating bath known as “Hoeft’s Bath,” which is now, and for the last eight years has been moored in the waters of the East river, adjacent to, and immediately south of pier number fifty-five, East river, and is fastened to the pier.
Read the full summary
Motion to continue an injunction. The plaintiffs are the owners of a floating bath known as “Hoeft’s Bath,” which is now, and for the last eight years has been moored in the waters of the East river, adjacent to, and immediately south of pier number fifty-five, East river, and is fastened to the pier. In May 1873, the commissioners of the department of docks gave the plaintiffs a written “permit” to use the lower or southerly side of the pier, and the waters adjacent thereto, for the business of a bathing establishment, during the pleasure of the board. The pier is leased, by whom it does not…
1Opinion of the Court
Monell, Ch. J.
The space occupied by the plaintiffs for their bathing h ouse, under a “ permit, ” or license from the commissioners of the department of docks, is a part of the navigable waters of the Bast river. It lies below the low-water mark, and partly in the channel of the stream, and is used wholly for private emolument.
Such a use of a public navigable river would be a purpresture or public nuisance, unless authorized by law.
Section 99 of the act to reorganize the local government of the city of New York, as amended in 1871, declares that the department of docks shall have exclusive…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Hart v. Mayor of AlbanyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
- Rensselaer and Saratoga R.R. Co. v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- People v. Rensselaer & Saratoga Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1836
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cole v. KellyNew York Marine Court · 1883