Philips v. Stocket
Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity
A bill in equity was exhibited to the court for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against the building of a mill, by which means it would overflow the plaintiff's lands above. The defendant owned the land on both sides of the water course. It was doubtful with Overton, J. whether it should be granted, as it appeared that the overflowing would do very little, if any injury. It is a principle of law that every man must so use his own property, as not to injure another.
Read the full summary
A bill in equity was exhibited to the court for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against the building of a mill, by which means it would overflow the plaintiff's lands above. The defendant owned the land on both sides of the water course. It was doubtful with Overton, J. whether it should be granted, as it appeared that the overflowing would do very little, if any injury. It is a principle of law that every man must so use his own property, as not to injure another. It will however be recollected, that mills are a public benefit, and we should not therefore discourage the building…
1Opinion of the Court
A bill in equity was exhibited to the Court for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against the building of a mill, by which means it would overflow the plaintiff's lands above. The defendant owned the land on both sides of the watercourse.
It was doubtful with OVERTON, J., whether it should be granted, as it appeared that the overflowing would do very little if any injury. It is a principle of law that every man must so use his own property as not to injure another.
It will however be recollected that mills are a public benefit, and we should not therefore discourage the building them.1 In…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Palmer v. MulliganNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Beissell v. ShollSupreme Court of the United States · 1800
3Cited by2 opinions
- Weakley v. PageTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
- West v. LunaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998