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.
General
Patrick O'Riley, Respondent, v. Nelson McChesney, Appellant
49 N.Y. 672·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur; Peokham, J., not sitting.
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
Patrick O’Riley, Respondent, v. Nelson McChesney, Appellant.
(Argued May 22, 1872;
decided May 28, 1872.)
Plaintiff was the owner of a grist-mill upon a creek in Rensselaer county; defendant owned a flax-mill upon the same creek, above plaintiff’s mill. He threw the refuse flax or shives into the stream, which formed a bar in plaintiff’s dam. Held, that the question whether this was a reasonable and ordinary use of the water was a question of fact for the jury. The top of the bar formed was lower than the bottom or apron of plaintiff’s flume. Defendant asked the court to charge that plaintiff' had, therefore, sustained no damage; this was refused. Held, no error; that plaintiff was entitled to have his pond clear so that he could lower his flume. Yarious other questions were disposed of, upon thé ground of the insufficiency of the exceptions.
John H. Reynolds for the appellant.
W. A. Beach for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur; Peokham, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.