Cumberland & Oxford Canal Corp. v. Hitchings
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from the superior court. Trespass for filling about two hundred yards of the canal bed immediately below Yaughan’s bridge in 1867. The filling was admitted and justified under authority of the city of Portland in the construction of a street. The justice instructed the jury inter alia: “Whatever diminution there is in the value of the property by reason of the trespass is an element of damage.” .The defendant, the verdict being for the plaintiffs, excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
It is_now perfectly well settled that one who creates a nuisance upon another’s land is under a legal obligation to *141remove it. And successive actions may be maintained until he is compelled to do so.
In Holmes v. Wilson, 10 Ad. & E., 503, (E. C. L. R., vol. 37,) where the trustees of a turnpike road built buttresses to support it on the land of A., and A. thereupon sued them and their workmen in trespass for such erection; it was held that after notice to the defendants to remove the buttresses, and a refusal to do so, A. might bring another action for trespass against them for keeping and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blunt v. McCormickNew York Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by16 opinions
- Uline v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Harvey v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Middelkamp v. Bessemer Irrigating Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.