Cables v. Bristol Water Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action by lower riparian owners to recover damages for wrongfully diverting, discharging, and polluting the waters of two brooks flowing through their farm, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Reed, J.; verdict for the plaintiffs for $3,075 which the trial court set aside as excessive, from which ruling the plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtPrentice, J.
Upon this appeal we are called upon to review the action of the trial judge in setting aside a verdict as being excessive, and not the action of the jury in rendering the verdict, save as such review is necessarily incidental to a determination of the propriety of the judge’s action. Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 446, 39 Atl. 797; McKone v. Schott, 82 Conn. 70, 71, 72 Atl. 570.
The supervision which a presiding judge has over a verdict which may be rendered is an essential part of the jury system. Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 129, 52 Atl. 724; Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 71, 49 Atl. 854;…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Burr v. HartySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Loomis v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Howe v. RaymondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Fell v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- State v. BittingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Birgel v. HeintzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- State v. ManningSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- E. M. Loew's Enterprises, Inc. v. SurabianSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.