Falls Village Water Power Co. v. Tibbetts
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill for an injunction. Facts specially found and a decree rendered for the petitioners in the superior court, by Dutton, J. Motion in error by the respondent. A statement of the case, which could not well be understood without a map, is omitted, as the general principles decided will be sufficiently understood from the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
If it was necessary that the petition should set out a legal title in the petitioners to entitle them to the relief sought, the respondent could not succeed on this motion in error. Whether the words “ seized and possessed ” import any thing more than a possession, is immaterial. The petitioners also aver as the foundation of their application, that the injuries done and threatened will materially lessen the value of the premises, and thereby inflict great loss upon them. These averments by implication allege ownership, and there is at most a mere defective statement of title. Besides, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bigelow v. Hartford Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
3Cited by19 opinions
- White's Bank of Buffalo v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kellogg v. School District No. 10 Comanche Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
- Holt v. WissingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
- Echelkamp v. SchraderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Taylor v. Henderson and SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.