Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Olcott Falls Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, to restrain the defendants from maintaining a dam across the Connecticut river for manufacturing purposes at Olcott Falls in Lebanon, without providing suitable sluiceways for the passage of logs floated by the plaintiffs down said river. The facts sufficiently appear in the arguments of counsel and the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
In the original bill the lumber company were sole plaintiffs; Their complaint is, that they annually exercise the public right of floating logs down Connecticut river, and that the defendants have obstructed the way by a dam at Olcott falls. The prayer is for a decree restraining the defendants from maintaining the dam without suitable sluice-ways; for a provision in the decree determining the dimensions and character of the sluice-ways; and for general relief. The defendants demurred on the ground that the alleged grievance is a public nuisance, for the abatement of which a suit cannot be…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Martin v. Lessee of WaddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- State of Penn. v. THE WHEELING &C. BRIDGE CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Miller v. Mayor of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Richmond v. AtwoodCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1892
- Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 5Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Boutwell v. Champlain Realty Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Ladd v. Granite State Brick Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Trullinger v. HoweOregon Supreme Court · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.