Seeley v. Bishop
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on the case, for the obstruction of a right of way of necessity, claimed by the plaintiff, over land owned by the defendant, and also for the obstruction, by means of a dam across a navigable creek, of the plaintiff’s passage along the creek to his land.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, for the obstruction of a right of way of necessity, claimed by the plaintiff, over land owned by the defendant, and also for the obstruction, by means of a dam across a navigable creek, of the plaintiff’s passage along the creek to his land. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Danbury, October term 1847, before Waite, S. The land described in the plaintiff’s declaration, was a part of a tract of salt meadow, formerly owned by Charles Knapp, now deceased, contáining about one acre, and bounded, on the North, by a causeway, leading from a drift-road to…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
The two grounds of action, stated in the declaration, are, the interruption of a way of necessity to the plaintiff’s meadow, and the maintaining a dam across a navigable creek, so that the plaintiff cannot pass along it to his land. Other questions have been discussed at the bar : but the conclusion to which we have come, upon the two main points, makes an end of the case upon its merits. We do not think, that the plaintiff, or those under whom he holds, had, after the sale of the land for a canal, in 1833, from Charles Knapp to Alfred Bishop, any right of way of necessity over the same. The…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Doolittle v. . Supervisors of Broome CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Waubun Beach Ass'n v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Cram v. LaconiaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901
- Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- Crommelin v. CoxeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.