Deshon v. Porter
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Facts Agreed. Case, for diverting the water from plaintiff’s flume, &c. The Court were authorized to draw inferences as a jury might, and enter judgment according to the legal rights of the parties. One Mark Blaisdell formerly owned the entire premises, and had a grist-mill thereon.
Read the full summary
On Facts Agreed. Case, for diverting the water from plaintiff’s flume, &c. The Court were authorized to draw inferences as a jury might, and enter judgment according to the legal rights of the parties. One Mark Blaisdell formerly owned the entire premises, and had a grist-mill thereon. In 1831, he conveyed to one Henry D. Smith a parcel of land near to the grist-mill, about one-half acre, “ likewise a water privilege for tanning purposes in all its various branches, which privilege is to come out-of the grist-mill dam, (one twelfth part of said dam to be kept in repair by said Smith.”) The…
1Opinion of the CourtTenney, J.
— It is admitted, that the defendant planked up the flume, as alleged in the plaintiff’s writ, and thereby the water was diverted from the plaintiff’s machine shop; and that this was done under the authority of Henry Matthews and others, who owned the grist-mill and privilege at the dam, subject to the plaintiff’s rights under a deed from William R. French to him, dated August 21, 1851, which in addition to a parcel of land connected with a mill-site, described therein, grants, “ likewise a water privilege for tanning purposes, in all its various branches, which privilege is to come out of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sumner v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
3Cited by4 opinions
- Muscogee Manufacturing Co. v. Eagle & Phenix MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Scheible v. SlagleIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Hall v. Sterling Iron & Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Woodring v. HollenbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902