Prentiss v. Larnard
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a bill in chancery, stating, in substance, that the orator owned an extensive water privilege, on the river Lamoille ; that, heretofore, he deeded certain land and water privilege in these words : “ Said premises to be used for the privilege of a fulling mill and cloth dressing, with the right of taking water'from the grist-mill floom for that purpose.”
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, stating, in substance, that the orator owned an extensive water privilege, on the river Lamoille ; that, heretofore, he deeded certain land and water privilege in these words : “ Said premises to be used for the privilege of a fulling mill and cloth dressing, with the right of taking water'from the grist-mill floom for that purpose.” And that he afterwards granted another privilege, in these words : “The privilege of taking water from the grist-mill floom, sufficient for the purpose of carding upon said privilege or premises with two double carding machines and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Coll ame 11, Chancellor.
The original jurisdiction of the court of chancery over the subjects of account, trust, fraud or accident, does not extend to this case. The subject matter of this bill is clearly of common law jurisdiction, unless in relation to the injunction. The jurisdiction of the court over the matter of private nuisances and matters of this kind is merely in aid of the courts of common law, and is mostly designed to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, and to preserve the subject matter of controversy from destruction until the right…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Allott v. American Strawboard Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1908
- Burnham v. KemptonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Crossland v. CrosslandWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1903
- Fairhaven Marble v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
- Pine v. Mayor of New YorkU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1896