Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Spring Valley Swamp 129 N.Y.S. 918

← Cases

In re Spring Valley Swamp

129 N.Y.S. 918 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1911-06-09 English

Delivered by BURR, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 918
In re SPRING VALLEY SWAMP.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 9, 1911.)

Headnote

Appeal and Ebbob (§ 1024[1] )—Review—Dbtebmination oe Deainage Coh-MISSIONEBS.
Where an order of drainage commissioners, finding that the drainage of certain land was necessary, was affirmed by the County Court, the Appellate Division, on objector’s appeal, had no jurisdiction to reverse the order, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, under Laws 1909, c. 20 (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 15) § 39, providing that an appeal on questions of law may be taken from the decision of the County Court to the Appellate Division, etc.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 1024.[1] ]
Appeal from Rockland County Court.
In the matter of proceedings for the drainage of certain lowlands known as the Spring Valley Swamp. From an order of the County Court of Rockland county, affirming a report of commissioners finding that it was necessary to drain the land (66 Mise. Rep. 206, 123 N. Y. Supp. 269 ), Luise C. Knauth appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and HIRSCHBERG, BURR, THOMAS, and CARR, JJ.
Hamilton R. Squier, for appellant.
George A. Blauvelt, for respondent.

In January, 1909, application was made by petition to the County Court of Rockland county for the appointment of three commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the statute relative to proceedings for the draining of swamps, marshes, and other low or wet lands, and for draining farm lands. Laws 1869, c. 888, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto. Commissioners were appointed, who repotted that it was necessary to drain the lands described in the petition, that the outlet of the pond described therein, and located upon the lands of Luise C. Knauth, should be deepened and cleared out, and that the dam of said pond should be removed, so as to permit the free passage of water therefrom. Luise C. Knauth appealed to the County Court of Rockland county from the determination of the commissioners, which affirmed the same. From such order of affirmance, she has appealed to this court.

Appellant’s principal contention is that the decision of the commissioners, and the order of the County Court confirming the same, are contrary to the weight of the evidence. We have no jurisdiction to pass upon this question. Laws 1886, c. 636, § 9; Laws 1909, c. 20 (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 15) § 39; In re Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1 , 28 Am. Rep. 88 ; In re Swan, 97 N. Y. 492 .

None of the exceptions to rulings upon questions of evidence merit discussion.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cases cited