Babcock v. . City of Buffalo

New York Court of Appeals

Babcock v. . City of Buffalo

56 N.Y. 268, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 114

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 56 N.Y. 268 (Babcock v. . City of Buffalo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Babcock v. . City of Buffalo, 56 N.Y. 268, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 114 (N.Y. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 270

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 271 It being established by the findings of the court at Special Term that it was not necessary for the purpose of abating the alleged nuisance, to fill up the portion of the canal north of Canal street bridge; that such filling up was a serious and unnecessary injury to the plaintiff's property; that the nuisance had been caused by the failure of the corporation defendant to exercise the powers conferred upon it by its charter, to preserve the canals and slips in the city by preventing the casting into them of obstructions or filth, and to remove obstructions therefrom, and keep them in navigable condition; and that the obstructions in the canal, north of Canal street, could have been removed at a small *Page 273 expense; we think that the filling up of the canal was not a proper exercise of the power to abate nuisances; and that the conclusions that the defendants had the right to fill up that portion of the canal, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin them for doing so, and that his complaint should be dismissed, were erroneous, and that the judgment thereon was properly reversed by the court at General Term.

The reasons for this reversal, and the law of the case, are so fully set forth and discussed in the opinion of SHELDON, J., at General Term, that we deem it superfluous to say more than that, after a careful examination, we concur in his conclusions upon the branch of the case to which we have referred.

As no point is made on the part of the appellants with respect to the form of the judgment being an absolute reversal instead of ordering a new trial, the judgment of the General Term should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 270

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 271 It being established by the findings of the court at Special Term that it was not necessary for the purpose of abating the alleged nuisance, to fill up the portion of the canal north of Canal street bridge; that such filling up was a serious and unnecessary injury to the plaintiff's property; that the nuisance had been caused by the failure of the corporation defendant to exercise the powers conferred upon it by its charter, to preserve the canals and slips in the city by preventing the casting into them of obstructions or filth, and to remove obstructions therefrom, and keep them in navigable condition; and that the obstructions in the canal, north of Canal street, could have been removed at a small *Page 273 expense; we think that the filling up of the canal was not a proper exercise of the power to abate nuisances; and that the conclusions that the defendants had the right to fill up that portion of the canal, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin them for doing so, and that his complaint should be dismissed, were erroneous, and that the judgment thereon was properly reversed by the court at General Term.

The reasons for this reversal, and the law of the case, are so fully set forth and discussed in the opinion of SHELDON, J., at General Term, that we deem it superfluous to say more than that, after a careful examination, we concur in his conclusions upon the branch of the case to which we have referred.

As no point is made on the part of the appellants with respect to the form of the judgment being an absolute reversal instead of ordering a new trial, the judgment of the General Term should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.Y. 268, 1874 N.Y. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-city-of-buffalo-ny-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack