Bissel v. Southworth
Supreme Court of Connecticut
ActioN of trespass, declaring that the defendant’s cattle got into tho plaintiff’s inclosure, bounding upon Nachauge river and ate up his corn and grass, etc. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.
Read the full summary
ActioN of trespass, declaring that the defendant’s cattle got into tho plaintiff’s inclosure, bounding upon Nachauge river and ate up his corn and grass, etc. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury. The facts in the case as admitted were — Nachauge is a small river, dividing the lands of the plaintiff and defendant; the plaintiff ploughed and mowed his side and the defendant-pastured on. his side; the river was no fence, and it was impracticable to maintain a fence in the dividing line between them, and very difficult keeping a fence on the banks of the river; the defendant turned his cattle into…
1Opinion of the Court
The court in giving tbeir reasons to tbe jury, agreed, that where a river, which is not navigable^ divides between two adjoining proprietors, tbeir lands meet in tbe middle of the river; and where lands are so situated that a division fence cannot be maintained in the dividing line, it is a case not provided for in tbe statute, and must be governed by tbe principles of reason and justice; and be that keeps cattle, must so keep them, as to prevent tbeir injuring tbe property of others. Tbe improvement of lands by ploughing and mowing, is of great public utility, it is therefore to be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Studwell v. RitchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841