Legal Opinion

Attorney General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 8, 1882PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.

This information in equity alleges that Jamaica Pond is one of the great ponds of the Commonwealth; that the defendant, by its charter and other statutes, was authorized to draw water from the pond for the purposes of its incorporation, provided it did not reduce the level of the pond below a certain limit referred to in the statutes; that by the St. of 1868, c. 182, the corporation was further authorized, for the purpose of better supplying fresh water and of saving and restraining the water that might percolate from Jamaica Pond into what was formerly known as Spring Pond, to take, hold or…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Newton v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  3. Commissioners on Inland Fisheries v. Holyoke Water Power Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  4. Cadigan v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  5. General v. WoodsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Missouri v. Illinois & the Sanitary DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. Coosaw Mining Co. v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  5. Attorney General v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API