Rafter v. Tagliabue

Superior Court of New York

Rafter v. Tagliabue

21 N.Y.S. 107

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJuly 15, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 107 (Rafter v. Tagliabue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rafter v. Tagliabue, 21 N.Y.S. 107 (superctny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

McADAM, J.

Ordinarily an owner of land cannot be enjoined from blasting rock off his own premises for the purposes of improvement, provided he exercises every reasonable care that no injury be done to the adjoining property; and that duty must be observed here. The injunction will be modified by permitting the blasting to go on; but enjoining the doing of the work without the safeguards which prudent men, while doing like work, adopt to prevent injury. Lawful acts must not be done in an unlawful manner, (Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159; Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 316; McKeon v. See, 4 Rob. [N. Y.] 449; Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 579; Wood, Nuis. § 142; 1 Thomp. Neg. 113,) or they may be the subject of action or suit in equity, according to the nature of the grievance. The question as to the rights and duties of the parties concerning the party wall does not arise upon this motion in such manner, as to require an adjudication thereon. See Schile v. Brokhahus, 80 N. Y. 614. Whether there is a liability against the owner or the contractor above may depend on questions which will be more appropriately determined at the trial, (see Brennan v. Schreiner, [Super. Ct. N. Y.] 20 N. Y. Supp. 130,) or may be considered on motion to punish for contempt.

In the modified form the injunction will be continued. No costs.

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

McADAM, J.

Ordinarily an owner of land cannot be enjoined from blasting rock off his own premises for the purposes of improvement, provided he exercises every reasonable care that no injury be done to the adjoining property; and that duty must be observed here. The injunction will be modified by permitting the blasting to go on; but enjoining the doing of the work without the safeguards which prudent men, while doing like work, adopt to prevent injury. Lawful acts must not be done in an unlawful manner, (Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159; Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 316; McKeon v. See, 4 Rob. [N. Y.] 449; Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 579; Wood, Nuis. § 142; 1 Thomp. Neg. 113,) or they may be the subject of action or suit in equity, according to the nature of the grievance. The question as to the rights and duties of the parties concerning the party wall does not arise upon this motion in such manner, as to require an adjudication thereon. See Schile v. Brokhahus, 80 N. Y. 614. Whether there is a liability against the owner or the contractor above may depend on questions which will be more appropriately determined at the trial, (see Brennan v. Schreiner, [Super. Ct. N. Y.] 20 N. Y. Supp. 130,) or may be considered on motion to punish for contempt.

In the modified form the injunction will be continued. No costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafter-v-tagliabue-superctny-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack