Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 21

Maine Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Volume 21

List price: US$9.02

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1843 edition. Excerpt: ...injury did not arise till after the, rendition of judgment; nor until it was ascertained, by a levy, that the property attached was insufficient to satisfy the execution thereon issued. The question would seem to be, was the omission a wrong done to the plaintiff, from which the supposed injury accrued? or was it an-innocent act of the defendant, from which consequential injury alone arose to the plaintiff? If the former, then the act complained of was the subject matter of the grievance; and the statute should begin to run from the time it took place. If the latter, then it should begin to run only from the time of the happening of the injury. If a man erects a dam, on his own land, causing-a reflux of a stream, which would overflow his neighbor's land only in case of a high freshet, the erection of the dam would be an innocent act; and the injury to be complained of would be consequential merely. But if the law gave a right to erect such a dam, and provided no other remedy for a person liable to be injured by it, than, that the builder of it should, in the case of a rise of water, hoist a gate sufficiently high to prevent the reflux of the water, to the injury of his neighbor, then the not hoisting of the gate would be the grievance to be complained of. The case at bar has been supposed to bear a similitude to the case of Roberts v. Read, 16 East, 215, in which it appeared that the defendant, a surveyor of highways, had so excavated adjoining the plaintiff 's wall, that some months afterwards it fell. The cause of action was considered as accruing when the wall fell. It was a special action on the case for consequential damage. Till the wall fell, there was no trespass upon the plaintiff 's rights. It did not appear more

Product details

  • Paperback | 208 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 381g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236768795
  • 9781236768797