Coolidge v. Williams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of the case brought in Middlesex, pursuant to the private statute of 1797, c. 75, to recover treble the value of certain shad and alewives, alleged to have been taken by tile de fendant within the limits of Watertown.
Read the full summary
This was an action of the case brought in Middlesex, pursuant to the private statute of 1797, c. 75, to recover treble the value of certain shad and alewives, alleged to have been taken by tile de fendant within the limits of Watertown. The statute gives a power to the inhabitants of Watertown, Weston, and Waltham, to regulate, by their agents, the times, [ * 141 ] * places, and manner of taking those fish, within the limits of the said towns, and to sell the right of taking them. The third section enacts that “ If any person, other than those to whom the said right shall be sold as…
1Opinion of the Court
The action being continued nisi, the opinion of the Court was delivered at this term by
Parsons, C. J.,
who, after shortly stating the nature of the action, the provisions of the statute on which it was [ * 144 ] * brought, and the terms of the agreement on which the verdict was found, proceeded as follows : —
The defence relied upon is, that the defendant took the fish in Cambridge.; that he put in his seine from the Cambridge shore, and having extended it into the river, he drew it upon the same shore, and there took the fish ; and that the fishery, thus carried on in Cambridge, is an…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- City of Boston v. RichardsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Arnold v. MundySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1821
- Commonwealth v. VincentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Herrin v. SutherlandMontana Supreme Court · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.