Brace v. Yale
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two bills in equity between the parties to the actions at law reported 4 Allen, 393, 10 Allen, 441, and 97 Mass. 18. Issue was joined, in each, on the answer; they were referred to a master to take and report the evidence; and were heard together, on the pleadings and master’s report, by Colt, J., and by him submitted, as follows, to the determination of the full court.
Read the full summary
Two bills in equity between the parties to the actions at law reported 4 Allen, 393, 10 Allen, 441, and 97 Mass. 18. Issue was joined, in each, on the answer; they were referred to a master to take and report the evidence; and were heard together, on the pleadings and master’s report, by Colt, J., and by him submitted, as follows, to the determination of the full court. “ Brace, in his bill, in substance complains that Yale has erected obstructions between the plaintiff’s ancient mill on Marsh Brook and the plaintiff’s reservoir dam at the head of said brook, by which the flow of the water is…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
There is nothing in the facts found and reported in the first suit, which, in the opinion of the court, can change the rule governing the rights of the parties, which was applied in Brace v. Yale, 10 Allen, 441, and Same v. Same, 97 Mass. 18.
The right of the plaintiff, acquired by prescription, as founded upon the facts agreed in Brace v. Yale, 10 Allen, 441, was a right to retain the water in the reservoir, and let it down in such quantities and at such times as he chose, for the purpose of working his mill. Although the defendant might derive some advantage from it as it passed his mill, he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brace v. YaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davenport v. Town of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Norway Plains Co. v. BradleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872
- Strough v. ConleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937