Thompson v. Gregory
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case, for erecting a dam across a stream or water running through the land, oí the plaintiff, situate in the manor of Rensselaer, and so near the land of the plaintiff, that it was thereby overflowed. At the trial of the cause, the following facts appeared.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, for erecting a dam across a stream or water running through the land, oí the plaintiff, situate in the manor of Rensselaer, and so near the land of the plaintiff, that it was thereby overflowed. At the trial of the cause, the following facts appeared. The plaintiff was in possession of land, through which the stream ran, which was admitted to be an an-dent stream, and in 1802, the defendant erected a back-■mill and dam, below the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s land, every season, was overflowed by the stream, at high water, before the dam was…
1Per curiam
This case is submitted, without argument, and the counsel for the defendant has stated several points, as reasons for setting aside the verdict, and awarding a new trial.
1. It is contended, that the plaintiff had no interest in the lands overflowed by the mill dam, as they were embraced by the exception or reservation, contained in the original lease to Griggs. The lease excepts and reserves all streams, and the soil under them, with the right to erect mills, and mill dams, and it then excepts and reserves the land which may be overflowed, in consequence of such dams. But until the grantor…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Woodward v. SeelyIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
- Riddle v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Metcalf v. HartWyoming Supreme Court · 1891
- Shipley v. FinkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.