Pillsbury v. Moore
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Action on the Case, for the continuance of a dam, whereby the plaintiffs’ ancient mill site was flowed and destroyed. Reported by Appleton, J. The facts necessary to a full understanding of the case, appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, J.
The ancestor of the plaintiff was the part owner .of a mill and privilege, which has been flowed out by a dam erected by those under whom the defendants derive their title. This action is brought for damage sustained by the continuance of the dam thus built, in consequence of back water caused thereby.
At the time when the dam in question was erected, the ancestor of the plaintiff had acquired no prescriptive rights by reason of a continued occupation for over twenty years. The defendants and those under whom they claim since its erecti on, have acquired no rights by lapse of time to have *155and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Staple v. SpringMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Dillingham v. RunnelsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ahern v. . SteeleNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Samuelson v. Cleveland Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Sloggy v. DilworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Groff v. AnkenbrandtIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.