Wier v. Covell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on the case for the diversion of water. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff, on the 17th day of October, 1851, was, and ever since had been, lawfully seized and possessed of a certain saw-mill, situated in the town of Glastenbúry, near to a certain stream or water course there, and which said stream or water course, before and at the time of committing the grievances mentioned, had been accustomed to run and flow, and of right had run and flowed, and still of…
Read the full summary
Action on the case for the diversion of water. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff, on the 17th day of October, 1851, was, and ever since had been, lawfully seized and possessed of a certain saw-mill, situated in the town of Glastenbúry, near to a certain stream or water course there, and which said stream or water course, before and at the time of committing the grievances mentioned, had been accustomed to run and flow, and of right had run and flowed, and still of right ought to run and flow, in great abundance and plenty unto the said saw-mill of the plaintiff, for the supplying of…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The defendant claims a new trial, on the ground that the evidence received by the court in support of the declaration did not support it, but was so variant from the allegations required to be proved by the plaintiff that it should have been rejected. The allegations are that the plaintiff was possessed of a saw-mill near to a stream of water, and had a right to have the water flow in great abundance and plenty unto the said mill, for the purpose of supplying the same with water for the working thereof; but the defendant well knowing, &c., diverted and turned large quantities of water out of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Inhabitants of Stratford v. SanfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Wilbur v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Avon Manufacturing Co. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862