Haynes v. Town of Burlington
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action on the case, to recover damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff’s land and buildings by the stoppage of a natural stream of water. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the September Term, 1864, Chittenden county, Pierpoint, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Action on the case, to recover damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff’s land and buildings by the stoppage of a natural stream of water. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the September Term, 1864, Chittenden county, Pierpoint, J., presiding. On trial it appeared that the plaintiff was, at the time of the commencement of this suit, the owner of the premises described in the declaration, and had been so ever since the year 1837; that these premises consist of about half an acre of land with a four story wooden building thereon erected by the plaintiff in 1838,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Poland, Ch. J.
The plaintiff claimed that the water was prevented from passing off through the culvert under the highway or street, and caused to overflow his land and building, in part by reason of earth sliding down the embankment which constituted the highway over the culvert, and in part by the fill made by the railroad company in the ravine below where it was crossed by the street. The defendant claimed that the obstruction of the passage of water *359through the culvert, and the consequent flooding the plaintiff’s land and building, was wholly caused…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Taylor v. Baltimore & O. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Marshall v. Town of BrattleboroSupreme Court of Vermont · 1960
- Kennon v. GilmerMontana Supreme Court · 1885
- Sanborn v. Village of Enosburg FallsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Ronkosky v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1912
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.