Palmer v. Mulligan

Palmer v. Mulligan - { PAGE | 22 } PALMER ET AL. v....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: { PAGE | 22 } PALMER ET AL. v. MULLIGAN ET AL. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NEW YORK 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. LEXIS 343 November, 1805, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] THIS was an action on the case for erecting and continuing a nuisance to the plaintiffs' mills and dam, situated upon the river Hudson, at Stillwater, in the County of Saratoga, by building above the said dam, and thereby directing the water from its ancient and accustomed course, and from the mills and dam of the plaintiffs, in consequence whereof they had not a sufficiency of water for working. The declaration set forth other gravamina in obstructing the rafting of timber into their dam, which was used as well to keep logs to be sawed, as to collect and retain water for working their mills; in also opening the sluiceway of the defendants' dam, and causing the rubbish collected therein to be carried into that of the plaintiffs, by means whereof it was choked up and rendered useless, so that they lost the benefit and advantage of their mills. From the evidence at the trial, it appeared that the plaintiffs' mills were erected on the first settlement of that part of the country, about forty years ago, upon their own ground, and were fed with water by a dam run out into the river. That at their first building the consisted of a grist and saw- mill, which, after being burnt down, [**2] were within a year rebuilt on the same spot. That after this, the saw-mill was a second time consumed by fire, and though the grist-mill (on which point there was a small contrariety of testimony) was worked from time to time, the saw-mill was not reconstructed till seven or eight years afterwards. A year or two before this period, the defendants erected their mill and dam, about two hundred yards above those of the plaintiffs. That the unavoidable consequence of the dam of the defendants was to oblige the plaintiffs to run theirs farther out into the stream; but even then, the current was so turned off into the river, as necessarily to increase the difficulty of bringing timber into the saw-mill of the plaintiffs, insomuch that it was impossible to avoid losing a great many logs, or reclaiming them at a considerable expense, to obviate which the defendants had, when applied to by the plaintiffs, refused permission to have a way made through their dam. That the rubbish from the defendants' mill, which it was more difficult to clear at low than high water, was a continual inconvenience to the plaintiffs, who { PAGE | 22 } sustained an injury of about eight shillings per day, exclusive of an increase [**3] of labor, which, since the erection of the defendants' dam, required about one hand more to every twenty-five logs than was formerly necessary to get them in....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/08/2008 for the course HIST 327 taught by Professor Hamm during the Spring '08 term at SUNY Albany.

Page1 / 22

Palmer v. Mulligan - { PAGE | 22 } PALMER ET AL. v....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online