Legal Opinion

Proprietors of Mills on Monatiquot River v. Inhabitants of Randolph, Holbrook, & Braintree

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 27, 1892PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.

These were petitions under the St. of 1885, c. 217, § 4, for the assessment of damages resulting from the joint taking by the respondents of all the water of Great Pond, lying partly in the town of Braintree and partly in the town of Randolph. The petitions were tried together before the same jury. It appears that, at the trial, two of the respondents asked the court to rule “ that the petitioners, in the aggregate, were enti-' *348tied to but two peremptory challenges, and the respondents in the aggregate to but two. The court refused so to rule, but ruled that each side was entitled to sixteen…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Hadden v. CollectorSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  3. Howe v. Inhabitants of WeymouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  4. Mannville Co. v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
  5. Proprietors of Mills v. Braintree Water Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. ClubMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  2. Amory v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  3. Lorain Steel Co. v. Norfolk & Bristol Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  4. Commonwealth v. O'NeilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  5. Burnham v. Mayor & Aldermen of BeverlyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API