Gage v. Steinkrauss
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity to restrain the defendants from cutting ice in Spy Pond. Hearing before Ames, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of the full court; such judgment to be entered as justice might require. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEndioott, J.
No question is made that, under the laws of this Commonwealth, Spy Pond is a great pond. It is therefore public property, and the right to cut ice therefrom for use or sale is common to all, and the owners of the shores have no peculiar right in the water or ice, or in the land under them, except by grant of the Legislature, or by prescription from which a grant is to be implied. Anc. Chart. 148. Cummings v. Barrett, 10 Cush. 186. Hittinger v. Eames, 121 Mass. 539, and cases cited.
It is not contended that the plaintiffs or their grantors have acquired any rights in the water of the pond or in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hittinger v. EamesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by7 opinions
- Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. City of Fall RiverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Concord Manufacturing Co. v. RobertsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Brown v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Attorney General v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- People's Ice Co. v. DavenportMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.