Ingraham v. Hutchinson

Ingraham v. Hutchinson - { PAGE | 1 } INGRAHAM against...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: { PAGE | 1 } INGRAHAM against HUTCHINSON. SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT, NEW-HAVEN 2 Conn. 584; 1818 Conn. LEXIS 31 November, 1818, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] THIS was an action on the case, wherein the plaintiff declared, that he is now, and for many years has been, the owner of a certain grist-mill, and saw-mill, on Blackledge river, in the town of Marlborough, of great value; that for many years past, this stream has used to flow through a water-course near his said mills, whereby he has been enabled to work them, without interruption or molestation, to the great benefit of the public, and to his own profit and advantage; that he has, and for many years past has had, the the right to use and improve the waters of said stream, in this manner, and for this purpose; yet, that the defendant, on the 1st day of June, 1812, erected a dam across said stream, above the land and mills of the plaintiff, and then, and ever since, thereby hath obstructed and impeded the course of said stream, and hath prevented the water from coming to the plaintiff's mills, whereby the plaintiff hath been deprived of his rights as aforesaid, and obstructed in the enjoyment of said stream of water. Another count stated, that the plaintiff, on the 1st day of June 1812, and long before, was, and ever since has been, lawfully possessed of a certain grist-mill, and [**2] saw- mill, and their appurtenances, on Blackledge river, in Marlborough, and of right, had, for more than thirty years, the use and benefit of said stream, for the purpose of working said mills; yet the defendant, well knowing the same, on said 1st day of June, and on divers other days since, wrongfully and injuriously obstructed the waters of said stream, and prevented and hindered them from running and flowing in their ancient course, to the said mills of the plaintiff, and from supplying the same with water, for the working thereof, in so ample and beneficial a manner, as during all the time aforesaid it would and ought to have done, whereby the plaintiff hath lost much of the use, profit and advantage of his said mills. On the trial at Hartford, September term, 1818, before Swift, Ch J. and Brainard and CHAPMAN, Js. the plaintiff claimed, that he had proved the facts stated in his declaration. The defendant insisted, that he was not liable, because the dam alleged to have been erected by him, was above the plaintiff's mills. But the court charged the jury, that when a man had made a dam across a stream, and had erected a mill, and used and occupied the same for more than fifteen [**3] years, he thereby acquired a right to the use of the water; and that no man had a right to erect a dam across the same stream, above such mill, so as to obstruct or divert the water from its natural course, in such manner as to injure the mill below. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; the defendant moved for a new trial, { PAGE | 1 } on the ground of a misdirection; and the court reserved the motion....
View Full Document

Page1 / 13

Ingraham v. Hutchinson - { PAGE | 1 } INGRAHAM against...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online