Clement v. Durgin
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Tins case, which was a complaint for flowing tin; lands of the complainant by the respondent’s mill-dam, [ Vid. Pol. I. p. 300.] came again before the Court, at the last October term in this county, for trial of the issue whether the respondent had good right to erect the dam, and flow the land of the complainant, without the payment of any damages therefor.
Read the full summary
Tins case, which was a complaint for flowing tin; lands of the complainant by the respondent’s mill-dam, [ Vid. Pol. I. p. 300.] came again before the Court, at the last October term in this county, for trial of the issue whether the respondent had good right to erect the dam, and flow the land of the complainant, without the payment of any damages therefor. At the trial of this issue, before Preble J. the respondent offered James Osgood as a witness, whose competency to testify was denied, on the ground of interest. And it appeared, from his own examination to this point, that he held a…
1Opinion of the Court
*12The opinion of the court was delivered in the following June. term, at Augusta, by
Weston J.
With regard to the objection to the competency of James Osgood, on the ground of interest, it appears that the witness owned on one side, and the respondent on the other, each to the thread of the stream, over which the dam was extended. They were not therefore owners of the dam in common; but each of a part in severalty. A verdict for or against the respondent, could • not be used for or against the witness in a complaint or action. The respondent might possess, by purchase or otherwise, the right, so…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. SkillmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Metcalf v. HartWyoming Supreme Court · 1891
- Snow v. KimmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Bloomstein v. Clees Bros.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1877