Sherwood v. Burr
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action on the case, for obstructing the . . ■ . plaintiff in the free use and enjoyment of a fulling mill.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action on the case, for obstructing the . . ■ . plaintiff in the free use and enjoyment of a fulling mill. The plaintiff had a fulling mill on the same stream of water a corn mill belonging to the defendants, who, about ten years ago, raised their dam one foot higher ... . , , .... than it had ever previously been ; by which the water was thrown back upon the wheel of the plaintiff’s mill, ancj jts tnotion impeded so as to prevent its being used, ⅜ The plaintiff produced in evidence a grant of the town of 'Fairfield, in which the mills were, dated 1766,…
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, Ch. J
(after stating the case.) The first ground urged for a new trial is, that there was a misdirection or omission of duty in the court, in declaring to the jury that it was unnecessary then to decide the question whether the deed from Reuben Sherwood to the plaintiff was affected by, or came within, the statute against selling or purchasing disputed titles. The court are under no obligation to decide every question of law proposed by the counsel, if they are of opinion it does not apply to the case. It would be extraordinary 10 put questions to the court not applicable, and then…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Baldwin v. CalkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Ingraham v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Merwin v. MorrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Coe v. Wolcottville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- King v. TiffanySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.