Duplesse v. Haskell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the pleadings, including a cross-bill, and on a master’s report at the December Term, 1913, Orange County, Butter, Chancellor. Decree for the orators. The defendants appealed. The opinion fully states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
The plaintiffs and the defendant Haskell take their respective rights in and to the spring of water in question, and in the pipe conveying the water therefrom, from common grantors. Defendant Bilow, before and at the time of the bringing of this suit, was occupying and using Haskell’s barns mentioned in the bill, and using the water from the latter’s tub under some agreement with him. The descriptive part of the deed from the common grantors to Selina Duplesse (dated June 7, 1910) of the farm now owned by the plaintiffs, contains the following: “Also the said Duplesse is to have one-half the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Coolidge v. HagerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1870
- Stimpson v. PutnamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Waterman v. BuckSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- Phelps v. RootSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Farrand v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kelly v. Alpstetten Association, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1973
- Woodbury Et Ux. v. Stetson Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1936