Tinkham v. Arnold
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
In a complaint under the statute for the support and regulation of mills, against the defendant for flowing the lands of the complainant, the defendant, among other things, pleaded that on the first day of March 1783, the proprietors of the Kennebec purchase, being seised of all the land in question, granted by their deed, which is lost, to James Bowdoin, whose estate he has, the right to erect, keep up, and maintain the dam mentioned in the complaint, and to flow the land…
Read the full summary
In a complaint under the statute for the support and regulation of mills, against the defendant for flowing the lands of the complainant, the defendant, among other things, pleaded that on the first day of March 1783, the proprietors of the Kennebec purchase, being seised of all the land in question, granted by their deed, which is lost, to James Bowdoin, whose estate he has, the right to erect, keep up, and maintain the dam mentioned in the complaint, and to flow the land therein described, free of any claim for damages. At the trial before the Chief Justice, upon a traverse of these facts,…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows.
By the report in this case it appears that the only question reserved for the decision t>f the Court is, whether the opinion of the Judge who presided at the trial of the cause, was correct upon the point stated; — viz. that the continuance of the mill-dam for about forty years past, was not legal evidence of a grant from the proprietors of the Kennebec purchase, of a right to flow the lands in question without payment of any damages, as mentioned in the third plea of the respondent; the flowing being a lawful act.
The argument of his…
2Cited by5 opinions
- White v. KampsMontana Supreme Court · 1946
- Jackson ex dem. Loucks v. ChurchillNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- City of Topeka v. CoweeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Gross v. JonesNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. ZehnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896