Hubbard v. Limerick Water & Electric Co.

Decision Date30 June 1912
Citation83 A. 793,109 Me. 248
PartiesHUBBARD v. LIMERICK WATER & ELECTRIC CO.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.

Action by Silas Hubbard against the Limerick Water & Electric Company. On report. Case remanded.

Action on the case to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant unlawfully erecting and maintaining a dam across the Little Ossipee river, above the plaintiff's mill, "thereby diverting and cutting off a large part of the water which was accustomed to flow into the plaintiff's dam and pond, and stopping the natural course of the water and preventing the same from coming to the plaintiff's said mill." A motion to dismiss the action and an agreed statement of facts were filed. The case was then reported to the law court for determination.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and CORNISH, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

Foster & Foster, of Portland, for plaintiff.

Lord & Fenderson and Frank M. Higgins, all of Limerick, for defendant.

HALEY, J. This is an action on the case brought by the plaintiff to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the acts of the defendant in unlawfully erecting and maintaining a dam across the Little Ossipee river in the towns of Limerick and Waterborough, in York county, and wrongfully diverting the water from the river.

The declaration alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of an ancient dam, mill, and privilege, and entitled to have all the water of said stream, without obstruction or impediment, flow into the pond connected with the mill and privilege, and that the defendant unjustly erected a new dam above the plaintiff's dam, and thereby cut off a large part of the water flowing into the plaintiff's privilege, and stopping the natural flow of said water and diverted and detained the waters of said river, and that by the acts of the defendant the plaintiff was unable to obtain sufficient water to operate his mill, and that by said obstruction and detention of the waters of the Little Ossipee river, as alleged, the plaintiff has been unable to obtain water to operate his mill in the manner he would have operated it, and did operate it, before the doing of the acts of the defendant complained of.

A motion to dismiss the plaintiff's writ was filed, in which it was alleged that the defendant was duly incorporated as a corporation under the provisions of chapter 159 of the Private and Special Laws of Maine for the year 1907, as amended by chapter 117 of the Private and Special Laws of Maine for the year 1909; that said act, by section 4, reading as follows: "Said corporation shall be held liable to pay all damages that may be sustained by any person by the taking of land or other property, by excavating through any land for the purpose of laying down pipes and aqueducts, building dams, reservoirs, by flowage, the erection of poles and wires or other structures, and any person sustaining damages as aforesaid, if he cannot agree with said corporation upon the sum to be paid therefor, may cause his damages to be assessed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions, restrictions and limitations as is provided by law in the case of damages by the laying out of highways"—has provided an express tribunal to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Bean v. Cent. Maine Power Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1934
    ...upon him to take the water in the same manner as it would be required to take other property." Hubbard v. Limerick Water & Electric Co., 109 Me. 248, at page 250, 83 A. 793, 794. "All these rights which the riparian proprietor has in the running streams, are as certain, as absolute, and as ......
  • Storey v. Camper
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 30, 1979
    ...a grant of a new trial the "rendering of a verdict contrary to the law and the evidence." Gatta v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., supra, at 83 A. 793. But if one looks to the particular section in Woolley which deals with a verdict against the evidence and examines the cases cited therein, o......
  • State v. Leo
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1930
    ...where proof dehors the writ is necessary to support or resist it. Richardson v. "Wood, 113 Me. 328, 93 A. 836; Hubbard v. Limerick W. & E. Co., 109 Me. 248, 83 A. 793; Hunter v. Heath, 76 Me. 219. Regardless of the reason assigned by the trial judge for the dismissal of this motion, his rul......
  • Cont'l Jewelry Co. v. Minsky
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 25, 1920
    ...proof is necessary dehors the writ. Hunter v. Heath, 76 Me. 219; Shurtleff v. Redlon, 109 Me. 62, 82 Atl. 645; Hubbard v. Limerick Water & Electric Co., 109 Me. 248, 83 Atl. 793. Second Exception.—Where a verdict is directed, and exceptions are taken, ruling is based upon the entire evidenc......
  • 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