Barre Water Co. v. Carnes
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bill for an injunction. Heard upon bill and answer at the March term, 1893'. Taft, chancellor, dismissed the bill, pro forma. The orator appeals. The opinion states the case. The petitionee as a riparian owner at its dam and below has the right to insist that the water shall flow in its natural volume. ChatfieldM.
Read the full summary
Bill for an injunction. Heard upon bill and answer at the March term, 1893'. Taft, chancellor, dismissed the bill, pro forma. The orator appeals. The opinion states the case. The petitionee as a riparian owner at its dam and below has the right to insist that the water shall flow in its natural volume. ChatfieldM. Wilson, 31 Vt. 358; Van Holsensr„ Coventy, 10 Barb. 5x8 ; Pollitt v. Long, 58 Barb. 20; Ma-combe v. Godfrey, 108 Mass. 2x9; Gillett v. Johnson , 3c Conn. 180; Mayo v. Appold, 42 Md. 442; Harwood v. West Randolph, 24 .Atl. Rep. (May 25, 1892) 97; Haw-ley v. Sheldon, 24 Atl. Rep.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
START, J.
This cause was heard on bill and answer and the facts stated in the answer are to be taken as true. A stream of water, called Jail Branch, runs through the town of Barre, flowing through the the villages of East Barre and Barre, the former village being about four miles above the latter on said stream. Under No. 171 of the acts of 1886, the orator has erected a dam across Jail Branch three miles above the village of Barre and one below East Barre, and the village of Barre is being supplied therefrom. There is also a stream of water called…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ottaquechee Woolen Co. v. NewtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- Chatfield v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Prouty v. BullardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lawrie v. SilsbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Lonsdale Co. v. City of WoonsocketSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1903
- Loranger v. City of FlintMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Bridgeman v. Village of HardwickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- City of Canton v. ShockOhio Supreme Court · 1902