Mannville Co. v. City of Worcester
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This was an action of tort. It appeared at the trial that the plaintiff was the owner of a mill in Rhode Island upon the Blackstone River; and there was evidence that the defendant had withdrawn, in Massachusetts, enough of the waters of Tatnuck Brook, a tributary of that river, materially to affect the operation of the mill. The main question argued before us is raised by the refusal of a ruling requested by the defendant, that “ the diversion of the waters of a natural stream in this State and preventing the same from coming to the plaintiff’s mill, situated in Rhode Island, is not a tort…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- RUNDLE v. Delaware and Raritan Canal CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Armendiaz v. StillmanTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Rundle v. Delaware & R. CanalU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1849
- Norton v. VolentineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1842
- Slack v. WalcottU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1825
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Mulhall v. FallonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Willey v. DeckerWyoming Supreme Court · 1903
- Cecil v. City of High PointSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Proprietors of Mills on Monatiquot River v. Inhabitants of Randolph, Holbrook, & BraintreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- White v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1903
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.