Legal Opinion
Fortier v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 19, 1940PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
This is a bill to enjoin the defendants from causing water to flow upon the plaintiff’s land and for damages.
At the argument the plaintiff stated that he no longer pressed the suit against the defendants town of Auburn *294and Cross. The master finds that the amount of water reaching the plaintiff’s premises from the defendant Worcester Milk & Cream Co. “is so small as to be inconsequential.” There is nothing to qualify the natural meaning of the words quoted. It follows that the bill was rightly dismissed as to all three of these defendants. Downing v. Elliott, 182 Mass. 28, 31. Smith v. New…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Wallace v. LudwigMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Smith v. New England Aircraft Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Mt. Holyoke Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Realty Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Geragosian v. Union Realty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Leahy v. Standard Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- United Electric Light Co. v. Deliso Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Melvin Griffeth and Lois D. Griffeth v. Utah Power & Light Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Ferrone v. RossiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Tucker v. PochMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Moseley v. Briggs Realty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.