Philips v. Stocket

1 Tenn. 200
CourtTennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity
DecidedMay 6, 1806
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Philips v. Stocket, 1 Tenn. 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1806).

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.

1 Co. Lit. 200 b; 4 Mass. 576; 3 Cain. 307; 4 Dall. 211. There can be no distinction between smaller and larger injuries. If the erection of the dam overflow any of the complainant's lands, though ever so little, the defendant ought to be restrained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

West v. Luna
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1998
Weakley v. Page
46 L.R.A. 552 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Tenn. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philips-v-stocket-tennsuperct-1806.