Arbuckle v. Ward
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action on the case for diverting the water flowing in an aqueduct leading from a spring on the defendant’s land to the plaintiff’s house. Plea the general issue; trial by jury, March Term, 1856, — Poland, J., presiding. The plaintiff read in evidence copies of deeds, — James II.
Read the full summary
Action on the case for diverting the water flowing in an aqueduct leading from a spring on the defendant’s land to the plaintiff’s house. Plea the general issue; trial by jury, March Term, 1856, — Poland, J., presiding. The plaintiff read in evidence copies of deeds, — James II. Langdon to Francis Davis, dated July 10, 1823, of a small piece of land and house, in Berlin, being the same upon which the plaintiff afterwards lived; Francis Davis to Daniel W. Fox, dated 12tli of February, 1828 ; Daniel W. Fox to Lutlier Cross, dated 8th of February, 1833 ; Luther Cross to Joseph Arbuckle, dated…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The general rule of law by which the right to draw water from a fountain or spring upon the land of another, and through the land of the owner of such spring, and to dig in the soil for the purpose of repairing or relaying the aqueduct, may be acquired by fifteen years’ uninterrupted use, under claim of right, is familiar law in this state.' And that this use will fix and define the mode and conditions of such right we have no-doubt. As if the party has been accustomed to repair the aqueduct and to allow the owner of the land to take…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Greeno v. MunsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
3Cited by15 opinions
- Barber v. BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- Russell v. PareSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
- Holm v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- Lawrie v. SilsbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Alper v. TormeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.