Varick v. Smith & The Attorney General
New York Court of Chancery
Tms case came before .the chancellor, on an appeal from a decretal order of a vice chancellor, overruling a demurrer to the complainant’s bill. The facts of the case as stated in the bill are fully stated in the following opinion of the vice chancellor, delivered at the time of making the decretal order, which was appealed from.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is an appeal from a decretal order of the late vice chancellor of the fifth circuit, overruling the demurrer of the defendant Smith to the complainant^ bill. The main questions presented by the bill are as to the *158rights of the complainant as the riparian owner of .lands on the west side of the Oswego river; and as to the right of the the lessee of the state to divert waters, not wanted for the purposes of the public, to the injury, of the complainant as the owner of water privileges on the Oswego river below the state dam. ' Upon these questions, it seems to be useless for…
2Cited by87 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Embury v. . ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Smith v. . City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Borman v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- The People v. . the Canal AppraisersNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.