Wilton Woolen Co. v. G. H. Bass & Co.

92 A. 612, 112 Me. 483, 1914 Me. LEXIS 156
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 17, 1914
StatusPublished

This text of 92 A. 612 (Wilton Woolen Co. v. G. H. Bass & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilton Woolen Co. v. G. H. Bass & Co., 92 A. 612, 112 Me. 483, 1914 Me. LEXIS 156 (Me. 1914).

Opinion

Cornish, J.

The problem before the Court in these cases is the determination of the respective rights of the owners of the water power developed by a dam at the outlet of Wilson Lake in the town of Wilton. Prior to November 12, 1898, there existed various water rights owned by several different persons, the old saw mill property being situated nearest the dam and the old grist mill property farther down the stream. What these rights were and how they were distributed among the owners becomes immaterial here, because it is admitted that they were all united in one F. J. Goodspeed, under deed from G. R. Fernald dated November 9,1898, and from Franklin J. Clark dated July 11, 1899. Goodspeed is the agreed fountain of title to the rights now under consideration, and these rights are now owned by the three parties to these bills in equity, Gardner G. Fernald, G. H. Bass & Company, and the Wilton Woolen Company.

1. Fernald Privilege. The first parcel carved out was the Fernald property which was by deed dated November 12, 1898. This con[486]*486veyance covered a part of the old grist mill lot with buildings thereon, subject to certain reservations immaterial here. The water rights conveyed and now in controversy were as follows:

“I also grant and convey to the said G. R. Fernald and Gardner G. Fernald their heirs and assigns, the right to construct and maintain a penstock over my land, under the surface, of sufficient capacity to supply a water wheel not venting over one hundred square inches of water. By the term “vent” meaning the area of the opening that will discharge the same amount of water the wheel uses under the same head as the wheel is placed.

The head of said penstock to start from any place in the wall of the canal, back of the present mill shed not nearer than twenty feet from the present flume to the present grist mill, and run to the land now deeded; granting the said G. R. Fernald and Gardner G. Fernald, their heirs and assigns the right to enter on or over my premises at any and all times for the purpose of making repairs on said penstock or to look after the rock at the head of said penstock. The head of said penstock not to be below the level of the flume of the grist mill. The rock for said penstock to be allowed to project into the canal a sufficient distance to allow the water to pass freely to the mouth of said penstock.

Also hereby conveying to said G. R. Fernald and Gardner G. Fernald their heirs and assigns, the right and privilege of having and using, on these premises herein described at all times a sufficient quantity of water from the above mentioned canal, through the penstock aforesaid to supply a water wheel not venting over one hundred square inches of water.

When the water in the pond is lower than within four and a half feet of the top of the present dam across the outlet of Wilson Pond, I restrict myself, my heirs and assigns from using from the power now owned by me an amount of water greater than that herein deeded to G. R. Fernald and Gardner G. Fernald, their heirs and assigns, viz: one hundred square inches.”

The controversy on this conveyance arises over the restriction in the last paragraph. Mr. Fernald claims that he is entitled to one hundred square inches of water, whatever the head may be, while Bass & Company, as a subsequent grantee from Goodspeed, contend that when the water in the pond is lower than within four and a half feet from the top of the dam, then Fernald is not entitled to a priority [487]*487of one hundred square inches, but the then available water must be divided equally between Fernald and the Bass Company. That is, if under that condition there are only one hundred and fifty square inches available, Fernald is not entitled to one hundred and Bass & Company to fifty, but each is entitled to seventy-five.

In our opinion the Fernald contention must be sustained. When Goodspeed carved out the one hundred square inches and retained all the balance, then Fernald had a priority in the quantity granted. The right of the grantee to the extent of the grant is superior to that of the grantor, and neither the grantor nor those holding under him have the right to interfere with the grant nor diminish the quantity of water granted. Oakland Woolen Co. v. Gas Co., 101 Maine, 198. The grant to Fernald was unlimited and unrestricted. Its terms are: “the right and privilege of having and using on these premises herein described, at all times a sufficient quantity of water from the above mentioned canal through the penstock aforesaid to supply a water wheel not venting over one hundred square inches of water.” The only restriction is that self imposed upon the grantor, Goodspeed, as to the rest of the power. , When the water reaches that low level, then “I restrict myself, my heirs and assigns from using from the power now owned by me an amount of water greater than that herein deeded to G. R. Fernald and Gardner G. Fernald, their heirs and assigns, viz: one hundred square inches.” This imposes no restriction upon the grantee for the benefit of the grantor, but upon the grantor for the benefit of the grantee. The grantor at that low head cannot use more than one hundred square inches. Fernald has a priority for his grant of one hundred, and the grantor or his successor can use all in excess of one hundred up to two hundred but no more. The object of the restriction was to prevent the head from being drawn down by the grantor to too low a level and thereby unduly diminish or destroy the power already granted to Fernald. We need say no more concerning the extent of the Fernald grant and the quantity of water to which he is entitled.

2. G. H. Bass & Co. and the Wilton Woolen Co.

After the conveyance to Fernald, already considered, Goodspeed conveyed to the Wilton Woolen Company, on January 15, 1903, the balance of the real estate and water rights owned by him, and the Woolen Company therefore stood in his place, succeeding to his rights and being bound by his limitations.

[488]*488On September 18, 1903, the Woolen Company conveyed to G. H. Bass (the predecessor in title of G. H. Bass & Co.) “Certain real estate and water power .... described as follows:

“The saw mill at outlet of Wilson Lake and yard subject to any rights of way hitherto reserved, or other reservations or restrictions of use of land heretofore made, and being the same mill described in deed by R. C. Fuller and George R. Fernald to Hiram Holt by deed of Sept. 13,1883, and of record book 98, page 352, in Franklin Registry with the following water power and privilege and none other to wit: the right to draw from Wilson Lake water sufficient to furnish forty (40) horse power with latest improved water wheels, after a reasonable development of the privilege, until the water reaches a point four and one-half (4|) feet below the top of the dam as now used, but when the water has reached said point his right to use water is limited to one hundred square inches and he is to have that right, and in case the dam furnishing said power is raised or the power from said lake is in any way increased the said Bass shall be entitled to his full proportionate benefit. In case at any time when the water is below the four foot and one-half mark, and the grantee is not using the full one hundred square inches of water thereof, the grantor reserves the right to draw sufficient water through its own private waste gate to make up the full one hundred inches including that used by the grantee.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A. 612, 112 Me. 483, 1914 Me. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilton-woolen-co-v-g-h-bass-co-me-1914.