Overview
Case summary
Plaintiffs Samuel Pine and others, riparian proprietors along the Byram river, sued the Mayor and others of New York City to enjoin the diversion of water from one branch of the river above their lands. They moved for a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion, finding that it did not appear sufficient water would not be left for their ordinary riparian uses, no substantial injury was shown, any harm could be well compensated at law, and defendants denied any diversion intention for about a year, allowing time for a final hearing. The court declined to condition an injunction on tender of damages, reserving that for the main hearing.
Abstract
Riparian proprietors sued to enjoin the diversion of water from a river branch above their lands and moved for a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that adequate water would remain for ordinary riparian uses, no substantial injury shown, any harm compensable at law, and time available for a final hearing before any diversion. The court reserved consideration of conditioning relief on tender of damages for the main hearing.
Opinion of the court
opinionWHEELER, District Judge
- Preliminary injunction requires showing of irreparable harm
- No evidence insufficient water would remain for plaintiffs' riparian uses
- No substantial injury shown
- Harm compensable at law
- Defendants deny diversion for about a year, allowing final hearing
- Damages issue reserved for hearing in chief
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
Holdings of the court
Timeline
Hearing on motion for preliminary injunction to restrain diversion of water from Byram river
Outcome: Motion denied
Court found insufficient showing of irreparable harm or inadequate legal remedy
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Defendants planned to divert water from one branch of the Byram river above where it passes plaintiffs' lands
- Plaintiffs sought to enjoin this diversion as riparian proprietors
- It was not shown that insufficient water would remain for plaintiffs' ordinary uses
- No substantial injury or uncompensable harm was demonstrated
- Defendants denied any intention to divert water for about a year
Disputed questions
- Whether diversion would leave sufficient water for plaintiffs' riparian uses
- Whether substantial injury would occur
- Whether damages could be compensated at law
Procedural history
2 steps- Plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin diversion of water
- Motion for preliminary injunction was heard
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (2)
Standards & doctrines
- Preliminary injunction standard requiring irreparable harm
- Riparian rights doctrine
Legal principles applied
- Preliminary injunction requires showing of irreparable harm not compensable at law
- Riparian proprietors entitled to reasonable use of water
Notable quotes
“It does not yet appear but that sufficient water would be left in the river coming from this branch and elsewhere for all their uses as ordinary riparian proprietors; nor that any substantial injury would accrue, or any that could not be well compensated for at law.”WHEELER, District Judge — Court's reasoning for denying preliminary injunctionSummarizes key legal standards for preliminary injunctions in riparian rights cases