Pierce v. Travers
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort by the owner of a mill and dam on a stream in Gardner, against the owners of another mill and dam lower on the stream, for flowing back water into the plaintiff’s wheel-pit The defendants alleged that they had used the water only as they were of right entitled to do.
Read the full summary
Tort by the owner of a mill and dam on a stream in Gardner, against the owners of another mill and dam lower on the stream, for flowing back water into the plaintiff’s wheel-pit The defendants alleged that they had used the water only as they were of right entitled to do. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., the plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that on September 24,1866, while engaged in taking out one of his mill-wheels and putting in a new one, he was embarrassed by the water rising above the ordinary level, and asked the defendants to let it off, which they at first…
1Opinion of the CourtFostek, J.
The only question presented by these exceptions *309is whether the evidence offered by the defendants amounted to a justification of the act complained of; the setting back of water from the defendants’ dam below upon the plaintiff’s mill-wheel above. The issue presented by the answer and the evidence was whether the use of the stream actually made by the defendants was a rightful one or not. The defendants’ right to keep up the water from October to May was not in controversy. They claimed also a prescriptive right to do so by flash-boards from May to October so far as they could without injury…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Romans v. NadlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Carlisle v. CooperSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1870
- Downie v. City of RentonWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Ely v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- National Fibre Board Co. v. Lewiston & Auburn Electric Light Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.