Inhabitants of Durham v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion and exceptions by defendant. Action on the case to recover damages whieli plaintiff town claimed to have sustained by reason of the defendant’s dam across the Androscoggin River deflecting the current or flow of said river towards the Durham shore thereby causing injury to the highway along said shore. Plaintifl recovered a verdict for $1,489.15. Defendant filed a general motion for a new trial, and also excepted to certain instructions and refusals to instruct.
Read the full summary
On motion and exceptions by defendant. Action on the case to recover damages whieli plaintiff town claimed to have sustained by reason of the defendant’s dam across the Androscoggin River deflecting the current or flow of said river towards the Durham shore thereby causing injury to the highway along said shore. Plaintifl recovered a verdict for $1,489.15. Defendant filed a general motion for a new trial, and also excepted to certain instructions and refusals to instruct. The exceptions were not considered. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWhitehouse, J.
In 1889 the defendant company erected on its own land and has since maintained, a dam across the Androscoggin river at Lisbon Falls, for the purpose of operating its paper mill there located. In order to obtain a suitable landing for the dam on the Durham side of the river, and give to the structure proper security and efficiency, the main dam, 311 feet long was constructed diagonally across the river, the upper side forming an obtuse angle with the Durham shore. A canal was cut on the Lisbon side in order to divert the water from its natural channel and make it available to propel the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Emerson v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1833
- Green v. SwiftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Henry v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858