Ball v. Nye
Cases that cite this one
37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- The Clark-Aiken Co. v. Cromwell-Wright Co. Inc. (Mass. 1975)
- Gorham v. Gross (Mass. 1878)
- Anderson v. W.R. Grace & Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1986)
- United States v. Fmc Corporation (2d Cir. 1978)
- Cities Service Company v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
- North Little Rock Transportation Co. v. Finkbeiner (Ark. 1967)
- Deyo v. Athol Housing Authority (Mass. 1957)
- Central Expl. Co., Inc. v. Gray, Et Ux. (Miss. 1954)
- Reynolds v. W. H. Hinman Co. (Me. 1950)
- Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co. (Conn. 1936)
- Kaufman v. Boston Dye House, Inc. (Mass. 1932)
- Healey v. Citizens Gas & Electric Co. (Iowa 1924)
- Schindler v. Standard Oil Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1921)
- Florida Power Co. v. Cason (Fla. 1920)
- Pearl v. Whitcomb (Mass. 1918)
- Louden v. City of Cincinnati (Ohio 1914)
- Weaver Mercantile Co. v. Thurmond (W. Va. 1911)
- Davis v. Rich (Mass. 1902)
- Ainsworth v. Lakin (Mass. 1902)
- Adams Hotel Co. v. Cobb (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1899)
- Commonwealth v. Yost (Pa. Super. Ct. 1899)
- Cork v. Blossom (Mass. 1894)
- Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas (Neb. 1894)
- Brady v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co. (Mich. 1894)
- United States v. Alexander (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
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
To suffer filthy water from a vault to percolate or filter through the soil into the land of a contiguous proprietor, to the injury of his well and cellar, where it is done habitually and within the knowledge of the party who maintains the vault, whether it passes above ground or below, is of itself an actionable tort. Under such circumstances the reasonable precaution which the law requires is, effectually to exclude the filth from the neighbor’s land; and not to do so is of itself negligence. In the present instance, there was no pretence of a sudden and unavoidable accident which could not have been foreseen or guarded against by due care. The percolations appear to have been constant, and their existence to have been known to the defendant. The instructions asked for by his counsel were liable to mislead the jury, and those given were exactly accurate and appropriate to the case. Baird v. Williamson, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 376. Rylands v. Fletcher, Law Rep. 3 H. L. 330.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.