White v. Chapin
102 Mass. 138
Opinion
The authorities cited by the defendant’s counsel do not sustain the position that the plaintiff was under the necessity of seeking any part of his remedy by going upon the defendant’s land and abating the nuisance caused by the obstructions which the defendant had there placed in the ditch He had a right to elect his remedy by action at law, and thereby recover all the damages which the nuisance had occasioned to him., Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
White v. Chapin, 102 Mass. 138 (Mass. 1869).
102 Mass. 138 (White v. Chapin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Baker
64 S.W.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1933)
Fairfield v. City of Salem
213 Mass. 296 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Sweeney v. Montana Central Railway Co.
65 P. 912 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Gates v. Northern Pacific Railroad
24 N.W. 494 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)