Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Foxborough Water Supply District
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, praying for an injunction against further interference with the plaintiff’s water, and for damages. The case, having been previously reported 165 Mass. 186, was now reported by Richardson, J., for the determination of this court. The facts appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in March, 1898, and after-wards was submitted on briefs to all the justices.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
In this case there was a decree dismissing the plaintiff’s bill without prejudice, with costs to the defendant, and with a provision made under the plaintiff’s stipulation, that, if another suit is brought against the defendant for the same cause, the defendant may, if it desires, have a trial by a jury upon the issues of fact. The question is whether the decree is erroneous.
In Kempton v. Burgess, 136 Mass. 192, it is said by Chief Justice Morton, in giving the opinion, that in suits in equity in which the plaintiff brings the bill for his sole benefit, and no other person is interested in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Union Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Kempton v. BurgessMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Purdy v. HensleeIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Reilly v. ReillyIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Long v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- City of Worcester v. Lakeside Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Keown v. KeownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Boyle v. Building Inspector of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
- Bolton v. Van HeusenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.