Hooker v. New-Haven & Northampton Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
A new trial having been granted in this case, (14 Conn. Rep■ 174.) the defendants pleaded anew. To the first count, which is the one stated 14 Conn. Rep. 147. they pleaded Not guilty. To the second count, which was similar to the first, except that it averred that the defendants voluntarily opened the banks of the canal, and conducted the water into and across the lands of the plaintiff, whereby the same was washed and carried away, &c. several pleas were pleadetj.
Read the full summary
A new trial having been granted in this case, (14 Conn. Rep■ 174.) the defendants pleaded anew. To the first count, which is the one stated 14 Conn. Rep. 147. they pleaded Not guilty. To the second count, which was similar to the first, except that it averred that the defendants voluntarily opened the banks of the canal, and conducted the water into and across the lands of the plaintiff, whereby the same was washed and carried away, &c. several pleas were pleadetj. These pleas, though varying somewhat in form, are substantially the same; all justifying the acts done by the defendants, as…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
We have not been able to see how the facts stated in the pleas present the case more forcibly for the defendants, than the facts found by the jury upon the former trial. In both cases, the authority derived by the act of incorporation, and by the directions or consent of the commissioners as to the construction of the canal and waste-wier, are the same. In neither case, is it pretented, that the plaintiffs land was taken for the use of the canal, or any injury to it contemplated, by- the commissioners, or damages assessed therefor; and in neither case, is it claimed, that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & Schenectady Rail RoadNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Tudor v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Emerson v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1833
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872
- Burgett v. AppersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
- Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Elliott v. Fair Haven & Westville RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- Fellowes v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.