Rider v. New York, West Shore & Buffalo Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court

Rider v. New York, West Shore & Buffalo Railway Co.

65 How. Pr. 419

DecidedAugust 15, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 65 How. Pr. 419 (Rider v. New York, West Shore & Buffalo Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rider v. New York, West Shore & Buffalo Railway Co., 65 How. Pr. 419 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Westbrook, J.

— The theory of the complaint is that the defendant can be restrained from constructing an embankment on its own land, which is necessary to make its road-bed safe, because such embankment has already slipped, and is liable to further slip on plaintiff’s land and ruin a spring. The objections to its continuance are: (1.) That the interests of the public require the road-bed to be made secure. (2.) The damages of the plaintiff are capable of estimation and can be [420]*420recovered. (3.) There is no allegation that the defendant is unable, pecuniarily, to respond; and (4.) As the interest of the defendant requires it to construct the bank so that it will not slip, there is no need of an injunction, and a continuance of the injunction may, by preventing work, stop the defendant from making secure the embankment already constructed, thus causing it to slide and do the very injury which the injunction seeks to prevent.

The injunction will, therefore, be dissolved, with ten dollars costs, to abide the event of the action.

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

Westbrook, J.

— The theory of the complaint is that the defendant can be restrained from constructing an embankment on its own land, which is necessary to make its road-bed safe, because such embankment has already slipped, and is liable to further slip on plaintiff’s land and ruin a spring. The objections to its continuance are: (1.) That the interests of the public require the road-bed to be made secure. (2.) The damages of the plaintiff are capable of estimation and can be [420]*420recovered. (3.) There is no allegation that the defendant is unable, pecuniarily, to respond; and (4.) As the interest of the defendant requires it to construct the bank so that it will not slip, there is no need of an injunction, and a continuance of the injunction may, by preventing work, stop the defendant from making secure the embankment already constructed, thus causing it to slide and do the very injury which the injunction seeks to prevent.

The injunction will, therefore, be dissolved, with ten dollars costs, to abide the event of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 How. Pr. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rider-v-new-york-west-shore-buffalo-railway-co-nysupct-1883.