Keeney & Wood Manufacturing Co. v. Union Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Petition for an injunction, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and reserved, upon facts found by a committee, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited 2 Kent.
Read the full summary
Petition for an injunction, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and reserved, upon facts found by a committee, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited 2 Kent. Com., 439 ; Tuclcer v. Jewett, 11 Conn., 311, 317, 324 ; Ingra ham v. Hutchinson, 2 id., 584; Mason v. Hill, 5 Earn. & Adol., 1 ; Bealey v. Shaw, 6 East, 208 ; Brown v. Best, 1 Wils., 174 ; Saunders v. Newman, 1 Barn. & Adol., 258, 262 ; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 396, 400 ; Gary y. Baniels, 8 Met., 468, 478; Ortman y. Bixon, 13 Cal., 38; Wheatley v. Chisman, 24 Penn. S. R.,…
1Opinion of the CourtSeymour, J.
The plaintiffs own paper mills on the Hock-anum river, and find it necessary for the successful prosecution of their business to run their mills during the entire twenty-four hours of the day. The defendant company owns a cotton factory situate on the same river, about a fourth of a *578mile above the plaintiffs’ mills, and the defendants run tlieir factory during the day only, from six o’clock in the morning until six at night, and find it necessary for the successful prosecution of their business to detain the water of the river during the night, and they do thus detain it by means of a dam of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Crawford Co. v. HathawayNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Batavia Manufacturing Co. v. Newton Wagon Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Mason v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Hazard Powder Co. v. Somersville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- Mason v. HoyleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.