Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a bill in equity praying for an injunction to restrain the defendants from building the Warren bridge over Charles river, whereby the toll would be diverted from the plaintiffs’ bridge. The bill is set forth in the 6th volume of these Reports, p. 376. The bill was filed during March term 1828, viz. on the 17th of June.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in equity praying for an injunction to restrain the defendants from building the Warren bridge over Charles river, whereby the toll would be diverted from the plaintiffs’ bridge. The bill is set forth in the 6th volume of these Reports, p. 376. The bill was filed during March term 1828, viz. on the 17th of June. An immediate injunction to stay the further building and finishing of Warren bridge jmtil a hearing and final decision upon the bill and such answer as should be made thereto by the defendants, having been refused, the defendants, on November 1, 1828, (in vacation,)…
1Per curiam
If we were bound by the rules of the Court of Chancery in England, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to a hearing at this time. There, when a cause is set down for hearing, a subpoena to hear judgment is to be served upon the adverse party ten days before the day of hearing, if he lives within twenty miles of London, and fourteen days, if beyond that distance.
But these rules are not in force here. We have not adopted them formally, and there has been no usage from which their adoption might be inferred. It has been an object with us to simplify chancery practice ; which can be effected…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Boyd's Lessee v. GravesSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Green v. BiddleSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- TERRETT & OTHERS v. Taylor & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chiminiello v. BanasMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1989