Murdock v. Stickney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The first of these cases was an action upon the case brought by the owner of land bordering on a salt water creek, in which the tide regularly ebbed and flowed, to recover damages for injury done to his land and the buildings thereon, by means of the flowing caused by a dam erected by the defendant across the creek, for the purpose of working a mill, solely by the ebb and flow of the tide.
Read the full summary
The first of these cases was an action upon the case brought by the owner of land bordering on a salt water creek, in which the tide regularly ebbed and flowed, to recover damages for injury done to his land and the buildings thereon, by means of the flowing caused by a dam erected by the defendant across the creek, for the purpose of working a mill, solely by the ebb and flow of the tide. The defence was that the creek was a stream not navigable, and that the plaintiff’s remedy was by complaint under the Rev. Sts. c. 116, commonly called the mill act. The parties submitted to the decision of…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The plaintiff, an owner of land bordering on a salt water creek or inlet, declares in case against the defendant, alleging that he has placed a dam across the said creek, by means of which the flow of the ebb-tide is obstructed, whereby the plaintiff is prevented from draining his land and buildings.
As every owner of land is entitled to the use of a natural outlet of water for all useful purposes, whether it be a current of fresh or salt water, passing through or by his land, including necessary drainage, such an obstruction by another, on his own land, is a violation of that right, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BlanchetteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Inhabitants of Brewer v. Inhabitants of New GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Cooper v. BisbeeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1828