Reynolds v. Chandler River Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report by Appleton, J. This was an action of trespass for building a dam across Chandler’s river, whereby the plaintiff’s hay, which he had left, as was customary, upon his meadow lands, was destroyed by the rise of water in the river. The defendants moved a nonsuit, on the ground that the form of action was misconceived, and that it should have been case, if any action for this injury is maintainable. The motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
On Report by Appleton, J. This was an action of trespass for building a dam across Chandler’s river, whereby the plaintiff’s hay, which he had left, as was customary, upon his meadow lands, was destroyed by the rise of water in the river. The defendants moved a nonsuit, on the ground that the form of action was misconceived, and that it should have been case, if any action for this injury is maintainable. The motion was overruled. The dam was erected in the summer of 1852, by virtue of an act of the Legislature. There was evidence tending to show that the dam caused the flow of back water,…
1Opinion of the CourtGoodenow, J.
This is an action of trespass to recover damages arising from the building of a dam across Chandler’s river, whereby the plaintiff's hay, which he had left as was customary upon his meadow land, was destroyed by the. rise of the water in the river.
The defendants moved a nonsuit on the ground that the form of action was misconceived.
We are of opinion that this motion was properly overruled. At common law, the proper remedy for such an al*518leged injury would have been, by an action on the case. The Revised Statutes provide that in all actions of trespass, and trespass on the case, the declaration…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cromer v. City of LogansportIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906
- Oldenburg v. Oregon Sugar Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Wilson v. . ScarboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916