Perkins v. Dow
Supreme Court of Connecticut
AgtioN for a nuisance; declaring, that for time immemorial a certain stream of water had run through the defendant’s land and in its natural course, to and through the plaintiff’s land, which he had constantly used for watering his cattle, flowing his land, and carrying his grist-mill, which was anciently erected upon said stream; that on the day of August, 1790, the defendant by digging a ditch on his own land, had turned and diverted said water out of its natural course,…
Read the full summary
AgtioN for a nuisance; declaring, that for time immemorial a certain stream of water had run through the defendant’s land and in its natural course, to and through the plaintiff’s land, which he had constantly used for watering his cattle, flowing his land, and carrying his grist-mill, which was anciently erected upon said stream; that on the day of August, 1790, the defendant by digging a ditch on his own land, had turned and diverted said water out of its natural course, so that it was prevented coming to the plaintiff’s land; whereby he was deprived of it for the purposes above expressed,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
He may; for as the defendant replaced the same obstructions immediately after, it is to be considered as a continuation of the same nuisances.
One Hun, who tended the plaintiff’s mill during this period upon shares, was produced as a witness, and objected against by the defendant on the score of interest; and by the court was not admitted — upon which'Hun made and executed a full discharge to the plaintiff, which he received and accepted — also he made a full discharge to the defendant, which he offered to the defendant but he refused to receive it; but upon said Hun’s tendering…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ingraham v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Baker, Fleming & Hubert v. BrownTexas Supreme Court · 1881