Cogswell v. Essex Mill Corp.
Cogswell v. Essex Mill Corp.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
It appears to us that the statute on wmch this complaint is founded does not apply to the case, as stated in the plea in bar. The statute remedy is intended only fox
Upon these two important points, there being no jurisdiction under the complaint, it would follow that the case is not at all within the statute, for in order to sustain the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas by a jury, there should be power, if the case required it, to execute all the powers given by the statute. A jury once impannelled under that statute, would be obliged to assess yearly damages, to limit the height of the dam, and to fix the time when it is not necessary to flow the lands at all.
Under this complaint then, if it be sustainable, the anomalous case might exist, of a jury in the country discussing the merits of a grant of the legislature, and at their discretion repealing it.
What then is the remedy if any one is injured by the execution of the act of the legislature ? An action at common law. The act gives a right to erect the dam in a form sup posed to be sufficient to protect from injury the property of the land owners ; if it turns out insufficient, they will have an action for the consequential injury.
Replication adjudged, bad.
See Constit. of Massachusetts, Amendments, art. 5; Comins v. Bradbury, 1 Fairfield, 447; Stowellv. Flagg, 11 Mass. R. (Rand’s ed.) 366, note a, Case v. Thompson, 6 Wendell, 637; Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick. 194; 2 Kent’s Comm. (3d ed.) 337 to 340.
See Revised Stat. c. 116, § 18.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William Cogswell versus The Essex Mill Corporation
- Status
- Published