TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reid v. Gifford

Reid and others against Gifford

Reid v. Gifford, 6 Johns. Ch. 19 (1822)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Chancery · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 12, 1822
Citations
6 Johns. Ch. 191822 N.Y. LEXIS 1361822 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 35
Headnotes
Where the plaintiff had been in possession of a mill and water-works, on the outlet of a lake, for above twenty years; and the defendant, five years ago, dug a tunnel, by which he drew off the water from the lake to his own mill, erected below, and thereby deprived the plaintiff of water sufficient for the use of his mill: Held, that an injunction, to restrain the defendant from diverting the water of the lake, would not be granted, until the right of the plaintiff was first established at law.
Summary
THE bill stated, that the plaintiffs, for the last twenty years, had been in possession of certain mill-seats and privileges for machinery and water-works, upon the outlet of lake B., and the outlet of another lake, erected in the towns of Greenwich and, Argijle, in the county of Washington, and during all that time have had several mills thereon. That the defendant, in 1816, and before the first day oi August, 1817, had caused a tunnel, or subterraneous passage, to be made to the lake, and caused the water to run through that passage, and so diminished the quantity of water in the lake, below its natural level, as not to suffer it to supply the mills on the outlet as heretofore. The plaintiffs charged, that the defendant has erected a saw-mill below the tunnel, which is supplied with water from the lake through it, and that such saw-mill was used last year. Prayer, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from diverting the water of the lake in the manner stated.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Chancellor denied tfye motion, on the ground, that the tunnel had been made, Wnd the water diverted, upwards of three years ago, and the right ought first to be settled at law. The case of Weller v. Smeaton, (1 Cox’s Cases, 102.) he said, contained a rule applicable to the case.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1838–1839: 11842–1843: 11854–1855: 11858–1859: 31860–1861: 11876–1877: 11892–1893: 11904–1905: 118382026peak 1858 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.113 Tenn. 331 (1904)
  2. Burden v. Stein27 Ala. 104 (1855)
  3. Spooner v. McConnell22 F. Cas. 939 (1838)
  4. Tuttle v. Church53 F. 422 (1892)
  5. Burnham v. Kempton44 N.H. 78 (1860)
  6. Coe v. Winnepisiogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Manufacturing Co.37 N.H. 254 (1858)

Most recent

  1. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.113 Tenn. 331 (1904)
  2. Tuttle v. Church53 F. 422 (1892)
  3. Goodall v. Crofton33 Ohio St. (N.S.) 271 (1877)
  4. Burnham v. Kempton44 N.H. 78 (1860)
  5. Webber v. Gage39 N.H. 182 (1859)
  6. Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Manuf'g Co.18 F. Cas. 1181 (1859)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list