Butler v. Huse
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Complaint for flowage of the plaintiff’s meadow by the defendants’ dam, between the middle of May and the first of September of 1867, and of each year since 1867, when the dam was repaired and rebuilt. The defendants claimed that they did not then raise the dam any higher than the old dams were, and that they had a right to build and maintain it as they did under their deeds.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Complaint for flowage of the plaintiff’s meadow by the defendants’ dam, between the middle of May and the first of September of 1867, and of each year since 1867, when the dam was repaired and rebuilt. The defendants claimed that they did not then raise the dam any higher than the old dams were, and that they had a right to build and maintain it as they did under their deeds. In 1818 Samuel Quimby owned the whole estate of these parties, all of whom now claim under him. December 27, 1848, he conveyed the portion now owned by the plaintiff to Jeremy Dunn, reserving “the right of…
1Opinion of the CourtVirgin, J.
The presiding justice instructed the jury that the respondents “have a right to the dam as it was at the date of their deeds; and if it became out of repair and by that means let off the water for a year or a series of years subsequent to that, and they then chose to tighten the dam, they would have a legal right to do so, because they would have a right to all that was conveyed to them and just what was conveyed to them. ,. . The onlyques*453tion then is whether or not the dam in 1867, when it was repaired, was made higher than the one which had previously existed.” The jury found for the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890