Gleason v. Gary
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on the case, for obstructing a watercourse; which was tried at Brooklyn, September term, 1821, before Peters, J. The plaintiff was the owner of a piece of meadow land below the defendant’s land. A small brook passed about half a mile through the defendant’s land, on to the land of a third person, and then on to the plaintiff’s meadow.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, for obstructing a watercourse; which was tried at Brooklyn, September term, 1821, before Peters, J. The plaintiff was the owner of a piece of meadow land below the defendant’s land. A small brook passed about half a mile through the defendant’s land, on to the land of a third person, and then on to the plaintiff’s meadow. For about forty-seven years, the plaintiff had enjoyed the uninterrupted use of the water of this stream, to irrigate his meadow, and to water his cattle, and in sufficient quantities for those purposes. He claimed and adduced evidence to…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The only question in the case, is, whether the abatement of the nuisance, by the plaintiff, for the damages resulting from which anterior to the removal, he has brought his suit, has extinguished his right of action. The judge expressed an opinion in the affirmative; but it was manifestly incorrect.
In Batten's case, 9 Co. Rep. 54. it is said, “that there are two ways to redress a nuisance; one by action, and in that he shall recover damages, and have judgment that the nuisance shall be removed; or the party grieved may enter, and abate the nuisance himself; but then he shall not…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Harvey v. DewoodySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856