Avon Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on the case for the obstruction of a stream of water; tried to the jury in the superior court, before Waldo, J. The declaration was as follows:— “ That the plaintiffs are, and from the 16th day of June, 1857, have been, legally seized and possessed of a certain piece of land situated in said Avon, bounded [describing it,] with a certain building used as a cotton factory thereon, and the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging; which said factory is situated…
Read the full summary
Action on the case for the obstruction of a stream of water; tried to the jury in the superior court, before Waldo, J. The declaration was as follows:— “ That the plaintiffs are, and from the 16th day of June, 1857, have been, legally seized and possessed of a certain piece of land situated in said Avon, bounded [describing it,] with a certain building used as a cotton factory thereon, and the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging; which said factory is situated near to a certain stream of water called Nod Brook, from which stream, by means of a race-way, extending from said stream…
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
Two questions only in this case require the decision of this court. The first is whether parol evidence was admissible to show what was conveyed by a certain deed, and the other whether the deed itself was admissible in support of the allegations in the declaration.
1. The litigation in this case undoubtedly had its origin in the different constructions given by the parties to a deed from Charles Whittlesey and others to Luther Wheeler and others, from whom the plaintiffs derive title, dated April 13, 1847. This deed transfers to the said Wheeler and others “ the right at all times hereafter…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Doolittle v. BlakesleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
- Inhabitants of Stratford v. SanfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Burdick v. GlaskoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
- Wier v. CovellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
3Cited by4 opinions
- Home Oil Co. v. ToddSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Muscogee Manufacturing Co. v. Eagle & Phenix MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Amercoat Corporation v. Transamerica Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Gray v. Saco Water Power Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1893