Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Salisbury
Decision Date | 24 October 1890 |
Citation | 152 Mass. 346,25 N.E. 724 |
Parties | WASHBURN & M. MANUF'G CO. v. SALISBURY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Reserved from supreme judicial court, Worcester county.
HEADNOTES
Waters and Water Courses 154(1)
405 ----
405VII Conveyances and Contracts
405k154 Easements and Rights Appurtenant to Other Property
405k154(1) In General.
Where millowners had title to pond supplying mill through flume and interest in reservoir by agreement with other mill owners for storage of water for pond, reservoir being declared appurtenant and forever inseparable from mills and water privileges connected therewith, which were charged in whosesoever hands they should come with share of cost of maintaining reservoir conveyance of mills without pond, but with right to draw water therefrom through 6 inch pipe as long as pond continued, with simultaneous lease to grantee for 20 years, of all water in pond for manufacturing, through flume to mill, at annual rental which was paid, held not to impliedly pass rights to pond water or reservoir after expiration of lease, nor except as expressly granted, though water from pond or reservoir, or like quantity, was necessary to operate mill.
In 1834, Stephen Salisbury, since deceased, erected a brick mill, and other buildings, known as the "Grove Mills," designed for the manufacture of wire, and other metal goods on land belonging to him in Worcester, on the east side of Grove street, a highway then lately laid out and on the southerly side of Mill brook, a stream of water running through said city. About the same time he built a dam across Mill brook, and raised a head of water on his own land on the westerly side of Grove street, which was called "Salisbury Pond," and the dam has ever since been maintained at substantially the same height as it was then built. He also built a flume which conducted the waters of the pond directly to the mills, where it was used for power and other purposes, in connection with the manufacture of wire, and other materials. October 1, 1834, he leased the Grove mills, including the water-wheel, dam, flume, and head of water, and privilege, to certain lessees, for the purpose of manufacturing wood, metal, or leather, for the term of 10 years, and said property was continuously leased till July 1 1868, for the same purpose; and for a long time prior to that time the company and its predecessors were in possession of the premises, as lessees of Stephen Salisbury. The leased premises, including the head of water, flume, water-wheel mill, and privilege, had always been used up to said July 1, 1868, for the manufacture of wire, and other materials, and the water privilege was always necessary for power, and the washing of wire, and for other purposes in connection with the manufacture. Prior to July 1, 1868, no mill was built on the northerly side of Mill brook at Grove street, and neither Salisbury nor any other person had ever owned or occupied any other mill operated in whole or in part by the head of water in Salisbury pond. But the waters of the pond had been used by said mill for power, and other purposes in connection with said manufactures, and were necessary for that purpose. November 24, 1849, for the purpose of increasing the value of Salisbury pond as a head of water for the brick mill, said Salisbury entered into an agreement with other owners of mills on Mill brook to purchase, control, and maintain a reservoir higher up said stream, known as "North Pond." The material parts of this agreement are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jasper v. Worcester Spinning & Finishing Co.
... ... It was stated in Washburn & Moen Manuf. Co. v. Salisbury, ... 152 Mass. 346 , 351, that "The ... ...
-
Bigelow v. Lawyers Mortg. Inv. Corp. of Boston
... ... Jewett v. Tucker, ... 139 Mass. 566 , 575. Washburn & Moen Manuf. Co. v ... Salisbury, 152 Mass. 346 , 351-352. Skilton v ... ...
-
Bigelow v. Lawyers Mortg. Inv. Corp. of Bos.
...these parties all the instruments must be read together. Jewett v. Tucker, 139 Mass. 566, 575, 2 N.E. 680; Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Salisbury, 152 Mass. 346, 351, 352, 25 N.E. 724; Skilton v. R. H. Long Cadillac LaSalle Co., 265 Mass. 595, 164 N.E. 652; Mayo v. Fitchburg & Leominster Str......
-
Union Nat. Bank of Lowell v. Nesmith
...actual conveyance. Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. v. Tolman, 210 Mass. 402, 410, 97 N. E. 54,38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 882;Washburn & Moen Co. v. Salisbury, 152 Mass. 346, 351, 25 N. E. 724. The judge ruled, subject to the respondents' exception, that their easement in the common entrance, stairways an......