Moore v. . Goedel
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of Superior Court of Hew York. The action was to recover for damages sustained by the plaintiffs by means of an overflow of the Croton water upon their premises, alleged to have occurred from the negligence of the defendants. The cause was tried before Mr. J ustiee Bosworth and a jury in June, 1860, and resulted in a verdict for the defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of Superior Court of Hew York. The action was to recover for damages sustained by the plaintiffs by means of an overflow of the Croton water upon their premises, alleged to have occurred from the negligence of the defendants. The cause was tried before Mr. J ustiee Bosworth and a jury in June, 1860, and resulted in a verdict for the defendants. It appeared on the trial that in August, 1857, the plaintiffs, jobbers of dry goods, occupied the cellar, basement and first floor of the building corner Barclay and Church streets, in the city of Sew York, the building extending…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
It may be that the exception to the judge’s charge is too general to be available; but as this objection is technical, and I am of the opinion that there was no error in the instructions given prejudicial to the plaintiffs, it need not be pressed.
The injury to the plaintiffs resulted from an overflow of the Groton water that had been introduced into the building of which • they were occupants of the cellar, basement and first floor. This overflow occurred at night, from water fixtures in the third loft of the building, and flooded to some extent the plaintiffs’ premises, injuring their goods.…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Purcell v. EnglishIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Harris v. . PerryNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Pignatario v. MeyersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Rosenfield v. ArrolSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Greco v. BernheimerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.