Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & Worcester Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed in March 1833, containing the following allegations. By St. 1814, c. 39, divers persons were incorporated by the name of the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation, and by that statute and those of 1816, c. 40, 1819, c. 65, and 1822, c. 34, the corporation was authorized to purchase and hold real and personal estate ; to build a dam from Charles street at the westerly end of Beacon street, in Boston, to Sewall’s point, in Brookline, so as to exclude the…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, filed in March 1833, containing the following allegations. By St. 1814, c. 39, divers persons were incorporated by the name of the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation, and by that statute and those of 1816, c. 40, 1819, c. 65, and 1822, c. 34, the corporation was authorized to purchase and hold real and personal estate ; to build a dam from Charles street at the westerly end of Beacon street, in Boston, to Sewall’s point, in Brookline, so as to exclude the tide water and form a reservoir or receiving basin of the space between the dam and Boston Neck ; to build another dam…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. Both parties in the present controversy are incorporated companies, claiming rights under several acts of the legislature, professing to have oñe common design and purpose, that of promoting public improvements ; and as the powers respectively claimed by them, under the acts and grants of the sovereign authority of the State, have come into" conflict, it becomes necessary . for the Court to decide between them'-. Two general questions naturally present themselves for consideration ; namely, what those rights are, and whether the remedy^spw sought…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riefler & Sons v. Wayne Storage Water Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911