Morgan v. King
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment. Cause tried by the court without a jury. The action was for obstructing the passage of saw logs floating in the Racket river. The plaintiffs were the owners of certain premises on the said river, on which was erected a dam and saw-mill. About two and a half miles above, the defendants owned the land on both sides of the river, on which stood a saw-mill, and across the stream a dam and boom.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment. Cause tried by the court without a jury. The action was for obstructing the passage of saw logs floating in the Racket river. The plaintiffs were the owners of certain premises on the said river, on which was erected a dam and saw-mill. About two and a half miles above, the defendants owned the land on both sides of the river, on which stood a saw-mill, and across the stream a dam and boom. Both parties claimed title through the same patent from the state, granted in 1787. The patent covered the whole township, without reservation, except as to mines of gold and…
1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.
In this case the court reported the facts found, and the conclusions of law thereon. Ho exceptions were taken to the finding of facts; but the exceptions are to the conclusions of law arising upon those facts; and the single question is, has the public a right of way over the waters of the Racket river, at the place of detention; or, in other words, *11was this river, in its natural state, such a stream as was subject to the public easement.
The facts from which this question is to be determined are these: “ The river is 160 miles long; from its mouth to Raymondsville, 20 miles, it is beatable,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Canal Commissioners v. PeopleCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- Palmer v. MulliganNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Comm'rs of Canal Fund v. KempshallNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- People v. PlattNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Hooker v. CummingsNew York Supreme Court · 1822
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- In re DoleHawaii Supreme Court · 1903
- Chapman v. BrownDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1961
- Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- In re Heaton's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.