Beissell v. Sholl
| Citation | 4 Dall. 211,4 U.S. 211,1 L.Ed. 804 |
| Parties | Beissell v. Sholl. 1 Wagoner v. Same. |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1800 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
CASE, for diverting a water course. The COURT left the facts to the jury, under this general statement of the law: 'That every man, in this country, has an unquestionable right, to erect a mill upon his own land; and to use the water, passing through his land, as he pleases: subject only to this limitation, that his mill must not be so constructed and employed, as to injure his neighbour's mill; and that, after using the water, he returns the stream to its ancient channel.'
1 Tried in the Circuit Court, Northampton county, June 1800, before SHIPPEN, C. J. and YEATES, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Crawford Company v. Hathaway
... ... Blanchard v. Baker, 8 Me. 253, 23 Am. Dec. 504; ... Keeney & Wood Mfg. Co. v. Union Mfg. Co ... 39 Conn ... 576, 582; Beissell v. Sholl, 4 U.S. 211, 1 L.Ed ... 804. [67 Neb. 341] The court could as properly say that in ... the prosecution of some important enterprise ... ...
-
Randall v. Silverthorn
...acres over which it ran, so as to pass by conveyance of the mill. Strickler v. Todd, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 67; Ang. on Water Courses, 23; 4 Dall. 211; Worrall v. Rhoades, 2 Whart. 427. The covenant does not extend to this right, not being an encumbrance; hence, possession was notice of its bein......
-
Hartzall v. Sill
...by any proprietor above or below himself: Ang. on Water-Courses, 13, 15, 17, 18; 3 Kent, 438, 440, 441; 2 Hilliard on Real Prop. 103, 104; 4 Dall. 211; 3 Cain. 307; 8 Mass. 136; 13 Ib. 420; 3 Pick. 269; 2 N. H. Rep. 532; 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 282; 9 Pick. 59; 3 Verm. Rep. 308; 3 Rawle, Although......
-
Hetrich v. Deachler
...or wantonly; and so the court instructed the jury. They also referred to Angel on Water Courses, 129, 168; Beissel v. Sholl, and Wagner v. Sholl, 4 Dall. 211; Merrit v. Brinkerhoff, &c., 17 Johns. 306; and argued that the charge of the court was more favourable to the plaintiff than he was ......
Request a trial to view additional results