Astor v. New York Arcade Railway Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
It is well settled that when an act complained of, or apprehended, besides being a public nuisance, will be specially injurious to several separate owners of real estate, they can join in an action to restrain the creation of the nuisance. Belknap v. Trimble, 2 Paige, 277; Oakley v. Trustees, 6 id., 262; Catlin v. Valentine, 9 id., 675; Cady v. Conger, 19 N. Y., 256; Milhau v. Sharpe, 27 id., 611; Peck v. Elder, 3 Sanf. S. C. R., 126; Gillespie v. Forrest, 18 Hun, 110; Doolittle v. Supervisors, 18 N. Y., 155.
In Milhau v. Sharpe, supra, such an action was brought by four several owners of lots…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Doolittle v. . Supervisors of Broome CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Cady v. . CongerNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Belknap v. TrembleNew York Court of Chancery · 1830