Sackrider v. Beers

New York Supreme Court

Sackrider v. Beers

10 Johns. 241

New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1813·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no just objection to the recovery of the plaintiffs below, The defendants were answerable in damages [244] for the injury to the p1aintiffs~ in the enjoyment of their mill, by diverting the natural course of the water. The defendants had~ no doubt, a right to build a mill on their land; but they must so construct the dam, and so use the water, as no~ to injure their neighbours below, in the enjoyment of the same water according to its natural course. (3 Caines’ Rep. 320.) The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed-

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

Per Curiam.

There is no just objection to the recovery of the plaintiffs below, The defendants were answerable in damages [244] for the injury to the p1aintiffs~ in the enjoyment of their mill, by diverting the natural course of the water. The defendants had~ no doubt, a right to build a mill on their land; but they must so construct the dam, and so use the water, as no~ to injure their neighbours below, in the enjoyment of the same water according to its natural course. (3 Caines’ Rep. 320.) The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed-

Sackrider v. Beers, 10 Johns. 241 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1813).

Pincite

10 Johns. 241 (Sackrider v. Beers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related