Christiansen v. Lanninn
| Decision Date | 18 June 1913 |
| Parties | CHRISTIANSEN v. LANNINN (four cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John L. Hall and Stuart C. Rand, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.
John P. Leahy, of Boston, for defendant.
These are actions of tort to recover damages resulting from the obstruction of a natural water course whereby water came upon the plaintiff's premises. The water course crossed the plaintiff's land in a covered pipe which opened near to land owned by the defendant. The defendant graded his land. There was evidence tending to show that during the performance of this work earth covered the mouth of the drain, causing damages to the plaintiff.
The only question presented is whether upon any view of the evidence the defendant could be held liable. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant made a contract with one McLane to 'do all rough grading as directed,' and that McLane, although he let the grading to a subcontractor, caused the work to be done as the defendant directed, and that the level of the surface of the earth at the rear of the lot, near the opening of the water course, was raised about 3 1/2 feet. At this place there was a slope and no retaining wall. The jury also might have found that while the defendant and McLane were upon the premises the latter pointed out to the defendant the opening of the pipe and said he had put some sticks and stones there. Thereupon the defendant told him to leave it as it was. It is not necessary to detail the evidence further. That which has been narrated, if believed by the jury, would justify a finding that the defendant retained an active directory control over the manner in which the grading and filling was done. If the water course was thereby obstructed to the damage of the plaintiffs the defendant might have been found responsible for it. Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123, 50 Am. Rep. 287; Mahar v. Steuer, 170 Mass. 454, 49 N.E. 741.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Wyman Lunch Co.
...Locke v. Royal Ins. Co., 220 Mass. 202, 107 N. E. 911;Whitcomb v. Boston Dairy Co., 218 Mass. 24, 105 N. E. 554;Christiansen v. Lannin, 215 Mass. 322, 102 N. E. 419;Rockwell v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 212 Mass. 318, 98 N. E. 1086;Greenough v. Phoenix Ins. Co. of Hartford, 206 Mass. 24......
-
Doherty v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...Locke v. Royal Ins. Co., 220 Mass. 202, 107 N. E. 911;Whitcomb v. Boston Dairy Co., 218 Mass. 24, 105 N. E. 554;Christiansen v. Lannin, 215 Mass. 322, 102 N. E. 419;Rockwell v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 212 Mass. 318, 98 N. E. 1086;Greenough v. Phoenix Ins. Co. of Hartford, 206 Mass. 24......
-
Hughes v. Williams
... ... execution was a purchaser for value without notice of the ... unrecorded deed. Luce v. Parsons, 192 Mass. 8, 77 ... N.E. 1032; Christiansen v. Lannin, 215 Mass. 322, ... 102 N.E. 419; Clark v. Watson, 141 Mass. 248, 5 N.E ... 298. The petitioner, although purchasing at an execution ... ...
-
Doherty v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...and sanctioned without comment. Locke v. Royal Ins. Co. Ltd. 220 Mass. 202 . Whitcomb v. Boston Dairy Co. 218 Mass. 24 . Christiansen v. Lannin, 215 Mass. 322 Rockwell v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co. 212 Mass. 318 . Greenough v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 206 Mass. 247 . Parker v. Middlesex Mutual As......