Legal Opinion
Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Foxborough Water Supply District
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 6, 1896PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This is a bill in equity for an injunction against ■ further interference with the plaintiff’s water, and for damages. The bill was dismissed and the case is here on report. It is found that the plaintiff has an artificial pond known as the Neponset Reservoir, and has a right to the waters of this pond. The defendant has taken land of third persons, and has dug wells upon the same, from which it pumps and distributes some thousands of gallons of water daily. A part of this water is percolating water, intercepted on its way to the plaintiff’s pond, and a part is water drawn from the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gilmore v. DriscollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Taft v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Ætna Mills v. Inhabitants of WalthamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Cowdrey v. Inhabitants of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Ætna Mills v. Inhabitants of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Foxborough Water Supply DistrictMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Emerson v. City of SomervilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Lexington Print Works v. Inhabitants of CantonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Lexington Print Works v. Inhabitants of CantonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.