Robb v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robb v. State

251 A.D. 786, 296 N.Y.S. 85

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1937

DocketClaim No. 18726

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 786 (Robb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robb v. State, 251 A.D. 786, 296 N.Y.S. 85 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed. Memorándum: In view of the specific finding of fact that the level of the water in the gravel pit was higher than the level of the water in the canal we reach the conclusion that the damage could not have occurred from leakage from the canal, and reverse the findings inconsistent with this finding as contrary to the weight of the evidence in view of the finding as to the levels of the water referred to. All concur. (The judgment awards claimant damages to a farm and gravel pit by reason of leakage from Barge canal.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed. Memorándum: In view of the specific finding of fact that the level of the water in the gravel pit was higher than the level of the water in the canal we reach the conclusion that the damage could not have occurred from leakage from the canal, and reverse the findings inconsistent with this finding as contrary to the weight of the evidence in view of the finding as to the levels of the water referred to. All concur. (The judgment awards claimant damages to a farm and gravel pit by reason of leakage from Barge canal.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 786, 296 N.Y.S. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robb-v-state-nyappdiv-1937.