Lamson v. Worcester
Supreme Court of Vermont
Heard on a referee’s report, May Term, 188o, Taet, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiffs to recover $398.73. The referee found, in part: “The action is assumpsit to recover a share of the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in repairing the great dam, so-called, on Mill Brook, in said Windsor.
Read the full summary
Heard on a referee’s report, May Term, 188o, Taet, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiffs to recover $398.73. The referee found, in part: “The action is assumpsit to recover a share of the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in repairing the great dam, so-called, on Mill Brook, in said Windsor. “ In 1862, and prior to June of that year, there were three water privileges on Mill Brook, a stream rising in Reading and running through Windsor to the Connecticut river, known and ealled in this case as the upper or great dam power, the middle or armory dam power, and the lower or grist-mill dam…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants a certain proportion of the expense of repairing a dam. The case was referred. The referee fails to find the express promise or agreement by the defendants to pay a portion of said expense which the plaintiffs endeavored to prove, and finds that if the plaintiffs are entitled to claim contribution from the defendants, it must arise from the provisions contained in the by-laws of the Ascutney Mill Dam Company, which was the common source of title of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hipp v. BabinSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Thayer v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Sanborn v. BraleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BarnettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- White & Hammond v. AmsdenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- State v. HirschSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
- Sanders v. PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896