Norris v. Vermont Central Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action on the case to recover for damages to the plaintiff’s land, in consequence of the Bturning .of Winooski River by the defendants. The cause was referred, and before the referee it was shown that the plaintiff conveyed to the defendants, on the 19th of June, 1849, a piece of land, described in his deed of that date.
Read the full summary
Action on the case to recover for damages to the plaintiff’s land, in consequence of the Bturning .of Winooski River by the defendants. The cause was referred, and before the referee it was shown that the plaintiff conveyed to the defendants, on the 19th of June, 1849, a piece of land, described in his deed of that date. At that time the defendants had made the survey and location of their road, and they purchased this piece or parcel of land for the purpose of turning the Winooski River, and thus avoid bridging. The river was turned, and the defendants’ railroad constructed. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
In this case the referee was to decide according to law, and, for the facts found by him, his report may be referred to.
*102It is not claimed, in the argument, that the act of turning the river, by the defendants, was, in itself, unlawful; and, it is clear,that if the defendants are to be made liable on the ground of negligence, or want of care, or skill in turning the river, by means of Which the damage was caused, such a case must be affirmatively made out. None is found by the referee, unless the law imposed the duty upon the railroad company…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Watts v. Norfolk & W. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
- Taylor v. Baltimore & O. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872
- Hord v. Holston River RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.