Case Name: George R. Meveigh, Respondent, v. International Paper Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-11
Citations: 125 A.D. 293
Docket Number: 
Parties: George R. Meveigh, Respondent, v. International Paper Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
George R. Meveigh, Respondent, v. International Paper Company, Appellant.
Third Department,
March 11, 1908.
Judgment—when injunction not indefinite.
A decree enjoining the maintenance of a dam at such height that during the natural flow of water it would extend the pond created hy the dam into a lake will not he reversed for indefiniteness, for the lawful height of the dam can he determined hy establishing the natural flow of the lake.
Appeal by the defendant, the International Paper Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Fulton on the 3d day of August, 1907, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Fulton Trial Term without a jury, in an action brought to enjoin the maintenance of a dam upon the outlet of Lake Pleasant, Hamilton county, 27. Y.
R. P. Aníbal [Frederick Linus Carroll and Andrew J. Nellis of counsel], for the appellant.
Norton N. Wright, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
The judgment should not be reversed on account of its indefiniteness. It prohibits the maintenance of the dam at such a height that during the natural flow of water it would extend the pond created by the datn into the lake. The moment the height of the water at the natural flow in the lake is determined, then the judgment becomes definite and certain, and it is a matter that can be easily established from time to time what the patnral flow is. That being determined, the prohibition against the defendant is definite. The dam is to be regulated by the conditions existing during the natural flow. ' If the defendant maintains .it according to such conditions, it apparently is not responsible for results from an extraordinary or excessive flow.
The other points raised have been considered, and the judgment should be unanimously affirmed, with costs.
All concurred.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.