Pine v. Mayor of New York

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Pine v. Mayor of New York

76 F. 418, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedAugust 4, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 76 F. 418 (Pine v. Mayor of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pine v. Mayor of New York, 76 F. 418, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883 (circtsdny 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has been heard on a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain diversion to defendants’ water supply of the water of one branch of the Byram river from that branch above where the river passes the plaintiffs’ lands. It does not yet appear but that sufficient water would be left in the river coming from this branch and elsewhere for all their uses as ordinary riparian proprietors; nor that any substantial injury would accrue, or any that could not be well compensated for at law. Prentiss v. Larnard, 11 Vt. 135; Slate Co. v. Adams, 46 Vt. 496. Besides this, any intention of diversion of any of the water for about a year is denied; and within that time, with due diligence, the final hearing may be had.

The suggestion that the damages be ascertained, and the allowance of an injunction be made conditional upon their tender, can be more appropriately disposed of upon the hearing in chief than now. Motion denied.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has been heard on a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain diversion to defendants’ water supply of the water of one branch of the Byram river from that branch above where the river passes the plaintiffs’ lands. It does not yet appear but that sufficient water would be left in the river coming from this branch and elsewhere for all their uses as ordinary riparian proprietors; nor that any substantial injury would accrue, or any that could not be well compensated for at law. Prentiss v. Larnard, 11 Vt. 135; Slate Co. v. Adams, 46 Vt. 496. Besides this, any intention of diversion of any of the water for about a year is denied; and within that time, with due diligence, the final hearing may be had.

The suggestion that the damages be ascertained, and the allowance of an injunction be made conditional upon their tender, can be more appropriately disposed of upon the hearing in chief than now. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 F. 418, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-v-mayor-of-new-york-circtsdny-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack