Perry v. Wilson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The facts in this action, which was trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, subverting his soil, carrying away his logs, &c., and which came before the Court on an agreed statement, are sufficiently disclosed by the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court as follows: —
1Opinion of the Court
* Parsons, C. J.
This action is trespass for breaking the plaintiff’s close, which is a part of the shore of Androscoggin river, in which the tide ebbs and flows, and is bounded on one side on the upland, and also adjoining to the plaintiff’s flats.
The defendant justifies under, and as one of the proprietors of the side-booms on Androscoggin river, a corporation created by the statute of 1804, c. 107. The breaking and entering of the close, and the carrying away of the logs, being admitted, as charged in the declaration, the sufficiency of this defence in law is submitted to the Court on the…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Mitchell v. OvermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Almeida Bus Lines, Inc. v. Department of Public UtilitiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
- Perkins v. PerkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Connecticut River Railroad v. County CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Estate of PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.