Mower v. Inhabitants of Leicester
Cases that cite this one
114 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Ohio 1996)
- Cooper v. Rutherford County (Tenn. 1975)
- Smith v. State (Idaho 1970)
- Larimore Public School District No. 44 v. Aamodt (N.D. 2018)
- Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (Wis. 2013)
- MacArthur v. San Juan County (District Court, D. Utah 2005)
- Butler v. Jordan (Ohio 2001)
- Hillerby v. Town of Colchester (Vt. 1997)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. (Ohio 1996)
- Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp. (Utah 1980)
- Haas v. Hayslip (Ohio 1977)
- Boyce v. Lancaster County Natural Gas Authority (S.C. 1976)
- Long v. City of Weirton (W. Va. 1975)
- Nieting v. Blondell (Minn. 1975)
- Jackson v. City of Florence (Ala. 1975)
- Kitto v. Minot Park District (N.D. 1974)
- Smeltz v. Harrisburg (Pa. 1970)
- Parish v. Pitts (Ark. 1968)
- Mildred M. Gossler & A. v. Manchester (N.H. 1966)
- Dillon v. York City School District (Pa. 1966)
- Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621 (Minn. 1962)
- Holytz v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. 1962)
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District (Cal. 1961)
- City and County of Denver v. Madison (Colo. 1960)
- Morey v. Town of Newfane (New York Supreme Court 1850)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff has brought his action against the inhabitants of the town of Leicester, for the loss of his horse, occasioned by the neglect of that town to keep a certain bridge in repair. The action is at common law, without alleging any notice to the inhabitants of the defect in the bridge, previously to the incurring of the damage by the plaintiff. But it is well settled that the common law gives no such action. Corporations created for their own benefit stand on the same ground, in this respect, as individuals. But quasi corporations, created by the legislature for purposes of public policy, are subject, by the common law, to an indictment for the neglect of duties enjoined on them ; but are not liable to an action for such neglect, unless the action be given by some statute. The only action furnished by statute, in this case, is for double damages after notice, dz-c. This question is fully discussed in the case of Russell & Al. vs. The Men of Devon, cited at the bar, and the reasoning there is conclusive against the action,
Judgment arrested.
[From the reasoning of the court, in Russell & Al. vs. The Men of Devon, that case seems to have been decided merely on the ground that no action would lie against the inhabitants of a town, unless given by some statute. If so, it is not very obvious how this decision can have any other tendency than to show that, upon principle, the action may be maintained here. — Ed.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.