Stillman v. Pendleton
This text of 60 A. 234 (Stillman v. Pendleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 A. 234, 26 R.I. 585, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillman-v-pendleton-ri-1905.