Clement v. Gould
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trespass on the case for obstructing the plaintiffs flume and diverting the water therefrom; and wap. heard at the December Term, 1888, Tyler, J., presiding, upon the report of a referee. Judgment for the defendant, and exceptions by the plaintiff. The following facts appeared. The water privilege in dispute-is situated on Stevens river, and both parties claim the first right to draw water from a dam across that stream.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass on the case for obstructing the plaintiffs flume and diverting the water therefrom; and wap. heard at the December Term, 1888, Tyler, J., presiding, upon the report of a referee. Judgment for the defendant, and exceptions by the plaintiff. The following facts appeared. The water privilege in dispute-is situated on Stevens river, and both parties claim the first right to draw water from a dam across that stream. The referee* reported that the defendant had in fact drawn substantially all the water for the six years next before the date of the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tart, J.
The report shows that the plaintiff owns the water rights in question, subject to those conveyed by Stevens to Herron in 1833, and that the title to the Herron rights is now in the defendant, unless such rights are affected by the deed from Stevens to Gleason in April, 1835. After the conveyance from Stevens to Herron, the former owned the right to use the water in the stream for any purpose except that of a grist-mill, but not to the injury of Herron, nor his assigns, in the mana „ facture of cotton or woolen cloth or meal and flour from…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Drouin v. Boston & Maine R. R.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- Bedell v. WilderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Boynton v. HuntSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Hartford Woolen Co. v. BugbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- City Power Co. v. Fergus Falls Water Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893