Philips v. Stocket
This text of 1 Tenn. 200 (Philips v. Stocket) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
A bill in equity was exhibited to the Court for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against the building of a mill, by which means it would overflow the plaintiff's lands above. The defendant owned the land on both sides of the watercourse.
It was doubtful with OVERTON, J., whether it should be granted, as it appeared that the overflowing would do very little if any injury. It is a principle of law that every man must so use his own property as not to injure another.
It will however be recollected that mills are a public benefit, and we should not therefore discourage the building them.1 In such cases, where the damage is minute, I should be inclined to leave the parties to their remedies at law, summum jus is never favored in this court. There should be some material probable injury to authorize this court to interfere.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Tenn. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philips-v-stocket-tennsuperct-1806.