Cary v. Daniels
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trespass upon the case. In the first count in the plaintiff’s declaration, he averred that on the 7th of March 1837, and thence to the day of the date of his writ, he was seized and possessed in his demesne, as of fee, of two acres of land, with a water mill thereon, and the water privilege thereto appertaining, on Charles River, in Medway, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, and ought, during all the time aforesaid, to have had the uninterrupted…
Read the full summary
Trespass upon the case. In the first count in the plaintiff’s declaration, he averred that on the 7th of March 1837, and thence to the day of the date of his writ, he was seized and possessed in his demesne, as of fee, of two acres of land, with a water mill thereon, and the water privilege thereto appertaining, on Charles River, in Medway, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, and ought, during all the time aforesaid, to have had the uninterrupted enjoyment of said mill privilege, without any molestation from the defendant; but that the defendant, on said 7th of March,…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The leading fact in the present case is, that at the time when Hall and others, under whom the defendant claims, conveyed the upper mill to Wilson, under whom the plaintiff claims, they were also the owners of the lower mill, the dam of which is complained of, by the plaintiff in this action, as a nuisance. The complaint is, that the lower dam is so raised as to set back the water and obstruct the free use of the plaintiff’s water wheels.
Two questions were made at the trial. 1. Whether, as contended for by the plaintiff, he is not entitled, as against the defendant, to a free and unobstructed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bennett v. BoothWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1912
- Stanfield v. SchneidewindSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1921