Tudor v. Cambridge Water Works
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, setting forth that in Cambridge, Watertown and West Cambridge a pond is situated, called Fresh Pond, containing about one hundred and eighty three acres; that there is a natural outlet from said pond to Mystic River; that the plaintiff is the owner of about forty eight acres of land lying under said pond, and of the shore adjoining, and of the outlet and of the land under and on both sides of the same; that he and those under whom he claims have for more than…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, setting forth that in Cambridge, Watertown and West Cambridge a pond is situated, called Fresh Pond, containing about one hundred and eighty three acres; that there is a natural outlet from said pond to Mystic River; that the plaintiff is the owner of about forty eight acres of land lying under said pond, and of the shore adjoining, and of the outlet and of the land under and on both sides of the same; that he and those under whom he claims have for more than forty years taken ice from the surface of that portion of the pond now belonging to him, as an article of merchandise,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*
The bill states a case within the chancery jurisdiction of this court, and with sufficient certainty to require the defendants to answer its averments. The injury to the water rights of the plaintiff in the pond, and to the fish right in the outlet, as alleged in the bill, constitutes a nuisance, and entitles him to relief in equity. If he is the owner of such rights as he avers, then the defendants have no authority to take them without suitable compensation; nor can the legislature give to the defendants any power to appropriate them without affording a remedy to the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904