Bierce v. Sharon Electric Light Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Labbadia v. Bailey

    147 Conn. 82 (Conn. 1959)   Cited 9 times

    See Adams v. Manning, 51 Conn. 5, 7; Gager v. Carlson, supra. The complaint in some respects is lacking in precision, but even if it can be construed as alleging a second cause of action for the wanton lowering of the pond to the damage of the claimed riparian rights of the schools, under the rule of cases such as Bierce v. Sharon Electric Light Co., 73 Conn. 300, 301, 47 A. 324, DeWitt v. Bissell, 77 Conn. 530, 535, 60 A. 113, and Taft v. Bridgeton Worsted Co., supra, the finding lacks the facts essential to the support of such a cause of action.

  2. DeWitt v. Bissell

    60 A. 113 (Conn. 1905)   Cited 9 times
    In DeWitt v. Bissell, 77 Conn. 530 (1905), the plaintiff owned land bordering manmade Long Pond and sued, in nuisance, the dam owner who lowered the water level generating foul odors because of the effect of summer heat on the exposed pond bed. Our Supreme Court rejected the validity of the nuisance claim because the dam owner had the right to modulate the water level.

    The court unqualifiedly overruled this claim, and in doing so plainly erred. Bierce v. Sharon Electric Light Co., 73 Conn. 300; State v. Sunapee Dam Co., 70 N. H. 458. We think this error was material and seriously injured the defendant.