
    Smith, appellant, v. Adams, 24 Wend. 585.
    Reported 6 Paige, 435.
    
      Jurisdiction ; Decree.
    
    The only part of the decree of the Chancellor which was reversed by the Court of Errors in this case, was a clause by which after dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction, the complainant, although his right to sue at law was saved by the clause, was precluded “from again litigating the question whether there had been any diversion of the water which had been accustomed to flow through his aqueduct.” It was to restrain this alleged diversion, that the bill was filed. The cause had been heard on pleadings and proofs.
   The Court of Errors held unanimously, that part of the decree erroneous, and it was modified accordingly.

Mr. Justice Bronson, who delivered the only opinion, says: “As my opinion rests on the ground that the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, I think the decree should be so modified, as not to prejudice the complainant’s right to sue at law for the redress of the injury of which he complains.”  