Stillman v. Pendleton

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Stillman v. Pendleton, 60 A. 234 (R.I. 1905)
26 R.I. 585; 1905 R.I. LEXIS 11
Douglas, Dubois, Blodgett

Stillman v. Pendleton

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The objection raised by the demurrer, that the action can not be maintained because the plaintiff became the owner of the premises subsequent to the time when the grade of the highway was changed and the gutters were constructed, is unsound. The facts alleged, if true, constitute a continuing nuisance, and an action quoties toties may be maintained. Wells v. New Haven & Northampton Co., 151 Mass. 46; Mississippi & Tennessee R. R. Co. v. Archibald, 67 Miss. 38; O’Brien v. City of St. Paul, 18 Minn. 176. In other respects the case stated is not dissimilar to the case stated in Johnson v. White, 26 R. I. 207. And see also Hathaway v. Osborne, 25 R. I. 251.

Demurrer overruled.

Reference

Full Case Name
Mary L. Stillman v. James M. Pendleton, Town Treasurer.
Status
Published