Legal Opinion

Inhabitants of Brookline v. Mackintosh

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 5, 1882PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Bill in equity, filed November 28, 1880, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from corrupting and polluting the waters of Charles River, from which the plaintiff takes water for domestic use by its inhabitants.

Read the full summary

Bill in equity, filed November 28, 1880, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from corrupting and polluting the waters of Charles River, from which the plaintiff takes water for domestic use by its inhabitants. Hearing before Soule, J., who, at the request of the parties, reported the case for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows: On May 7, 1872, the plaintiff town accepted the St. of 1872, c. 343, and under the authority given by it, by a vote passed on April 22, 1874, a copy of which was duly recorded in the registry of deeds for Norfolk county within sixty…

1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.

Assuming, but without deciding, that the remedies provided by the St. of 1878, c. 183, to prevent the pollution of rivers, streams and ponds, used as sources of water supply by cities or towns, are not exclusive, and that, on a proper case made, the court, under its general chancery jurisdiction, may restrain any nuisance committed by the defendant in fouling the waters of Charles River, we proceed to consider whether such a case is set forth in the report as entitles the plaintiff to the exercise of this jurisdiction.

By the St. of 1872, c. 343, the plaintiff was entitled to take, hold and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Peck v. ConwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  2. Mills v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  3. Rhodes v. WhiteheadTexas Supreme Court · 1863
  4. Ætna Mills v. Inhabitants of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Durham v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. Attorney General v. Revere Copper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  3. City of Durham v. Eno Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  4. Parker v. American Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  5. Turner v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API