Todd v. Austin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Petition under the flowage act, praying for authority to raise a mill dam above its existing height, and for the assessment of damages to the several respondents, whose lands would be overflowed thereby.
Read the full summary
Petition under the flowage act, praying for authority to raise a mill dam above its existing height, and for the assessment of damages to the several respondents, whose lands would be overflowed thereby. There were three petitioners and the petition alleged that they were severally the owners of mills on a certain brook known as Stony Brook, running out from Paug Pond, and that all their mills were supplied with water from the pond, the dam being situated at the outlet of the pond, one of the petitioners owning and operating a grist mill, another a mill for the manufacture of axe handles, and…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCubdy, J.
The principal point raised in this case, the constitutional question, was decided after full consideration in the case of Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. R., 532. But as the question was one of great interest, and it was suggested that new views might be presented bearing especially on the *85particular facts of this case, a very elaborate argument was again listened to by the court.
It was claimed that in Massachusetts, where the flowage laws were said to have originated and where they have been more frequently discussed and sustained than in any other state, principles in relation to the rights of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Olmstead v. CampSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1866
3Cited by23 opinions
- Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Gohld Realty Co. v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Carofano v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Adams v. Greenwich Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Board of Water Commissioners v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.