New York Supreme Court, 1813

Sackrider v. Beers

Sackrider v. Beers
New York Supreme Court · Decided May 15, 1813
10 Johns. 241

Counsel

Foot, for the plaintiffs in error., D. Ruggles, contra.

Sackrider v. Beers

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

There is no just objection to the recovery of the plaintiffs below, The defendants were answerable in damages *244for 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-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.