Murphy v. Kelley
Timothy Murphy v. Andrew Kelley, jr.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Appleton, O. J.
This is an action on the case for obstructing a sewer or drain on the defendant’s premises.
The drain has existed for thirteen years. The plaintiff has *522 owned his house and lot for about five years. He shows no right to the use of the defendant’s drain, by deed or prescription.
The defendant “ may prevent surface water from coming upon his land, whether flowing thereon from a highway or any adjoining land,” remarks Peters, J., in Morrison v. Bucksport & Bangor Ra ilroad, 67 Maine, 353. So he may erect structures thereon regardless of its effect upon surface water or how much others may be affected by it. Bates v. Smith, 100 Mass. 181 .
The evidence entirely fails to show a watercourse where the drain is; and if there had been one there, this suit is not for its disturbance.
Plaintiff nonsuit.
Walton, Barrows, Danforth, Peters and Libbev, JJ., con curred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.