City of Rockland v. Rockland Water Co.

Decision Date20 November 1893
Citation29 A. 935,86 Me. 55
PartiesCITY OF ROCKLAND v. ROCKLAND WATER CO.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Report from supreme judicial court, Knox county.

Bill by the city of Rockland against the Rockland Water Company to restrain a nuisance. Heard on report of pleadings and testimony. Bill dismissed.

The plaintiff complained in its bill that the defendant corporation, by unlawfully raising the waters of Tolman's pond, overflowed a certain highway in the city of Rockland, thereby obstructing said way, rendering it unsafe and inconvenient for public travel at certain portions of the year, subjecting the city to loss and expense, and tending to totally obstruct and destroy the way in question.

W. H. Fogler, City Sol., for plaintiff. Mortland & Johnson, for defendant.

HASKELL, J. Bill in equity to restrain a nuisance, in the form of a dam that raises water to so great a height as to flow out a highway, whereby the plaintiff has been put yearly to expense in its repair.

The statute (chapter 17, § 5 et seq.) gives a remedy at law. It gives damages and appropriate process for abatement of the nuisance. This remedy has not been invoked; and the bill does not show any special reason why the right of the parties should not be first settled at law. The supposed nuisance has long existed, and there appears to be no imminent danger that the threatened injury will result in irreparable damage.

The equity side of this court has been given jurisdiction by statute piecemeal. The Revision of 1841 (chapter 96, § 10) first formulated the equity jurisdiction by specific classes of causes, eight in number. From time to time, changes have been made in those classes, and new ones added. In 1874 (chapter 175) equity jurisdiction was conferred "in all other cases where there is not a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law" (Rev. St c. 77, § 6, cl. 11), so that our equity jurisdiction then became complete, according to the course of courts of chancery. Stinchfield v. Milliken, 71 Me. 567. The want of legal remedy always gave jurisdiction to courts of equity, and the limitation of our various statutes, "where the remedy at law is not plain, adequate and complete," means no more than the usual limitation applied to all equity jurisdictions. It does not mean that our equity jurisdiction shall be limited and shorn, by conferring more plenary powers upon courts of law to grant relief, unless the statute plainly says so or intends it.

Since the act of 1874, the equity side of the court has exercised general chancery jurisdiction, like the judiciary of the United States, under article 3 of the constitution, which provides that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of law and equity arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States," etc., more plainly fixed by the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20, § 16 (Rev. St U. S. § 723), "suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law." And, as said by Mr. Justice Story in Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 658: "The chancery jurisdiction given by the constitution and laws of the United States is the same in all the states of the Union, and the rules of decision are the same in all." Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268. And explained by Mr. Justice Curtis in his lectures: "That is, it is one uniform system throughout the whole United States,—the same in Massachusetts as in Georgia or California; and, in general, the sources of the law are to be found—First, in the decisions of the supreme court of the United States; second, in the decisions of the circuit courts, as reported in the Reports of the circuit courts; and lastly, and perhaps I ought to say mainly, in the equity law of England; * * * and, whatever may have been the modifications made of the English equity law in the different states by statute or by custom, they have no effect in the courts of the United States." Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202, 14 Sup. Ct. 75.

The supreme court has always held its equity powers measured by the jurisdiction of the English chancery. Our jurisdiction may be limited from time to time, by statutes bestowing equitable remedies upon courts of law, if the statute expressly so provides or plainly so intends (1 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 276-281, and cases cited); but it cannot be enlarged. Otherwise, the right of trial by jury, according to the course of the common law, might be denied, in violation of article 1, § 20, of our constitution, that is similar to the seventh amendment of the constitution of the United States, already considered by the supreme court. Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106, 11 Sup. Ct 712; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Cyr v. Cote
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • January 26, 1979
    ...practiced . . . . Our constitutional provision safeguards the right to a jury trial on all legal claims. City of Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 86 Me. 55, 29 A. 935 (1893). As to equitable issues, viz., "cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced", no jury trial right exists by......
  • Inc. Town of Polk City v. Gemricher
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1919
    ...10 Am. St. Rep. 860;Demopolis v. Webb, 87 Ala. 659, 6 South. 408;Metropolitan City R. Co. v. Chicago, 96 Ill. 620;Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 86 Me. 55, 29 Atl. 935;Raritan Twp. v. Port Reading R. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 11, 23 Atl. 127;Kansas City v. Burke, 92 Kan. 531, 141 Pac. 562;Id., 93 ......
  • Incorporated Town of Polk City v. Gemricher
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1919
    ...... The evidence tends to show that the surface water is. obstructed thereby in a way to cause gutters to be washed in. the unpaved street, and, at ...659 (6 So. 408);. Metropolitan City R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 96 Ill. 620; City of Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 86 Me. 55 (29 A. 935); Inhabitants of Twp. of Raritan v. Port. Reading R. ......
  • American Oil Co. v. Carlisle
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • January 17, 1949
    ...the right of jury trial as vouchsafed by Section 20 of the Bill of Rights in the Maine Constitution. As said in Rockland v. Rockland Water Co., 86 Me. 55, 58, 29 A. 935, 936:-- ‘The supreme court has always held its equity powers measured by the jurisdiction of the English chancery. Our jur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT