Legal Opinion

Astor v. New York Arcade Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 1886Published

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

  1. Doolittle v. . Supervisors of Broome CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
  2. Cady v. . CongerNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  3. Belknap v. TrembleNew York Court of Chancery · 1830

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API