From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oswego R. Rlty. v. Sweet Bros. Paper

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1936
272 N.Y. 505 (N.Y. 1936)

Opinion

Argued April 23, 1936

Decided October 6, 1936

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Charles E. Spencer, Basil B. Aylesworth and William A. Mackenzie for Senoso Paper Company, Inc., plaintiff, appellant and respondent. Edward Schoeneck for Oswego River Realty Corporation, plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

Arthur E. Sutherland for Sweet Brothers Paper Manufacturing Company, Inc., defendant, respondent and appellant.


The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified to eliminate any adjudication as between the plaintiffs of riparian ownership or water rights in the pool above the dam, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

CRANE, Ch. J., O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur; LEHMAN and CROUCH, JJ., dissent from so much of the decision as holds that the water power of the Peck Mill opening is confined to the amount of water necessary to operate a two-saw mill.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Oswego R. Rlty. v. Sweet Bros. Paper

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1936
272 N.Y. 505 (N.Y. 1936)
Case details for

Oswego R. Rlty. v. Sweet Bros. Paper

Case Details

Full title:OSWEGO RIVER REALTY CORPORATION et al., Appellants and Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 6, 1936

Citations

272 N.Y. 505 (N.Y. 1936)
4 N.E.2d 420

Citing Cases

Oswego R. Rlty. v. Sweet Bros. Paper

Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended so as to read as follows: "Judgment of…

Northern New York Power Corp. v. St. of N.Y

We have quoted at some length from these opinions of Judge RODENBECK as he is undoubtedly the most eminent…