Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Buffalo Union Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Buffalo, Respondent, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 671 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
The Buffalo Union Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Buffalo, Respondent
47 N.Y. 671·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Buffalo Union Iron Works, Appellant, v. The City of Buffalo, Respondent.
(Argued February 12, 1872;
decided February 20, 1872.)
Action to have an assessment made by defendant, for the purpose of removing obstructions from Buffalo creek, declared illegal, and to restrain defendant from collecting.
On the 17th of April, 1857, the legislature passed an act authorizing the common council of the city of Buffalo to dredge and clear obstructions from said creek, and to cause at least one-half the expense to be assessed upon the property benefited. The creek was obstructed by the sunken hulls of a steamer and two canal boats. In pursuance of the statute of the city charter, the common council took proceedings to remove these obstructions, and assessed one-half of the expense upon the property benefited, and, among others, upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had no power to assess the expense upon the property, because the obstruction was a permanent one, and a public nuisance; also, that defendant did the acts which created the obstructions. Held, the objections were untenable, and defendant had full power.
G. Wadsworth for appellant.
B. H. Williams for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm on Judge Verplanck’s opinion.