Respublica v. Caldwell
Supreme Court of the United States
This was an indictment for a nuisance, in erecting a wharf on the public property. • The defendant offered witnesses to prove that the erection of the wharf had been beneficial to the public, and therefore, not to be regarded as a nuisance. But—
1Opinion of the CourtMcKean, Chief Justice
Secondly, Because it would be no justification ; for, on the same principle that the defendant might carry his wharf twelve feet, he could justify extending it farther ; or any other man might excuse a similar intrusion. Suppose, for instance, a street were 60 feet wide, 12 feet might be taken off it, without doing any material injury to the public property, or creating any great obstruction to passengers; yet surely this will not justify any man’s actually buildim» upon, and assuming the property of the twelve feet that could be tl’w spared.
2Cited by6 opinions
- People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- People v. Detroit White Lead Works Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Ballentine v. WebbMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- State v. KasterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Tibbal v. CahoonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.