From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwarzenbach v. Oneonta Light Power Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 1911
144 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Summary

In Schwarzenbach v. Oneonta Light Power Co., 144 App. Div. 884 (129 N.Y. Supp. 384), the defendant was engaged in supplying electricity to the inhabitants of a certain municipality and injunction was suspended as long as the company was thus engaged, but on appeal, 207 N.Y. 671 (100 N.E. 1134) the decree was modified to suspend the operation of the injunction until a date certain, thereby giving the defendant a reasonable time in which so to change its operations as not to trespass on the rights of the plaintiff.

Summary of this case from Minto v. Salem Water Etc. Co.

Opinion

May 3, 1911.

A.R. Gibbs, for the appellant.

Alva Seybolt, for the respondent.


Plaintiff's right to damages is established by the decision in Schwarzenbach v. Electric Water Power Co. ( 101 App. Div. 345). His right to a perpetual injunction, however, does not necessarily follow that decision. In that case it did not appear that the defendant company was engaged in any public service as it now appears in respect of this company. By the concession in the case, the defendant has the only electric light plant by which the public is served at Oneonta, and it supplies the demand for electric lights in public places, business houses and residences therein. The plaintiff's damage from 1902 to 1909 has been found to be only seventy-five dollars. That damage was so slight, for which the plaintiff has his remedy at law, that a court of equity will not decree a perpetual injunction which will place the defendant in a position whereby it cannot perform the public service in which it is engaged. The judgment should, therefore, be modified so as to suspend the operation of the injunction as long as the defendant shall be engaged in furnishing electric light to any municipality, and as modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

All concurred, except BETTS, J., who dissented and voted for affirmance of the judgment in its entirety without modification.

Judgment modified so as to suspend the operation of the injunction as long as the defendant shall be engaged in furnishing electric light to any municipality, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.


Summaries of

Schwarzenbach v. Oneonta Light Power Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 1911
144 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

In Schwarzenbach v. Oneonta Light Power Co., 144 App. Div. 884 (129 N.Y. Supp. 384), the defendant was engaged in supplying electricity to the inhabitants of a certain municipality and injunction was suspended as long as the company was thus engaged, but on appeal, 207 N.Y. 671 (100 N.E. 1134) the decree was modified to suspend the operation of the injunction until a date certain, thereby giving the defendant a reasonable time in which so to change its operations as not to trespass on the rights of the plaintiff.

Summary of this case from Minto v. Salem Water Etc. Co.
Case details for

Schwarzenbach v. Oneonta Light Power Co.

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR SCHWARZENBACH, Respondent, v . ONEONTA LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 3, 1911

Citations

144 App. Div. 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
129 N.Y.S. 384

Citing Cases

Minto v. Salem Water Etc. Co.

However, in Fraser v. Portland, supra, and in Stephens v. Eugene, supra, injunction was granted…