Brace v. Yale
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for interrupting the flow of water from the plaintiff’s reservoir on Marsh Brook in Stoekbridge, to the plaintiff’s mill on the same stream, between October 9, 1863, and October 10, 1864. The parties to this action are the same as to the action for similar obstructions prior to October 9, 1863, reported 10 Allen, 441. At the trial of the present action in the superior court, before Rockwell, J.,the facts agreed in that case were admitted in evidence, and it further…
Read the full summary
Tort for interrupting the flow of water from the plaintiff’s reservoir on Marsh Brook in Stoekbridge, to the plaintiff’s mill on the same stream, between October 9, 1863, and October 10, 1864. The parties to this action are the same as to the action for similar obstructions prior to October 9, 1863, reported 10 Allen, 441. At the trial of the present action in the superior court, before Rockwell, J.,the facts agreed in that case were admitted in evidence, and it further appeared that since that case the plaintiff had made certain alterations in his mills, which are described in the opinion of…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
The instructions given in this case were in substantial conformity with the decision in Brace v. Yale, 10 Allen 441, and are correct unless the facts offered in evidence by the defendant, as to the changes made by the plaintiff in the use of the water, have affected the rights of the parties. These changes are in substance as follows : The plaintiff’s mill was, at the time of that decision, a saw-mill. In 1863 and 1864 the plaintiff built a new mill in its place; repaired the dam at his mill; put in two new wheels, and machinery for sawing logs; also machinery for grinding feed, for sawing…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vliet v. SherwoodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Davenport v. Town of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Brace v. YaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868