Citation network
Head Vs. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 05, 1885
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Head v. AmoskeagSearch
-
Mfg. Co. - 113 U.S. 9 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Head v. AmoskeagSearch
-
Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9 (1885) Head v. AmoskeagSearch
-
which authorized it to erect and maintain its mills and dam, gave it no right to flow the lands of others. Eastman v. AmoskeagSearch
-
since 1870, and then in three states only, and for incompatibility with their respective constitutions. Loughbridge v. HarrisSearch
-
Tyler v. BeacherSearch
-
Ryerson v. BrownSearch
-
Tennessee, Alabama, and New York, containing dicta to the same effect, were decided upon other grounds. Harding v. GoodlettSearch
-
Memphis Railroad Co. v. MemphisSearch
-
Moore v. WrightSearch
-
Bottoms v. BrewerSearch
-
Hay v. CohoesSearch
-
power, that a grist mill which grinds for all comers at tolls fixed by law is for a public use. See also Blair v. CumingSearch
-
Wolcott Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. UphamSearch
-
Palmer Co. v. FerrillSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the water power of rivers and navigable waters for mechanical and manufacturing purposes are for a public use. Scudder v. TrentonSearch
-
Boston & Rocbury Mill Corporation v. NewmanSearch
-
Hazen v. EssexSearch
-
Commonwealth v. EssexSearch
-
Hankins v. LawrenceSearch
-
Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. FernaldSearch
-
inuring to the public from the improvement of water power and the promotion of manufactures. See also Holyoke Co. v. LymanSearch
-
Beekman v. SaratogaSearch
-
Talbot v. HudsonSearch
-
when directly controverted, has often been upheld upon that ground, confirmed by long usage or prior decisions. Jordan v. WoodwardSearch
-
Olmstead v. CampSearch
-
Todd v. AustinSearch
-
Venard v. CrossSearch
-
Harding v. FunkSearch
-
Miller v. TroostSearch
-
Newcomb v. SmithSearch
-
Fisher v. HoriconSearch
-
Babb v. MackeySearch
-
Burnham v. ThompsonSearch
-
with the constitution of that state because the taking authorized was for a public use. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. FernaldSearch
-
was held in Ash v. CummingsSearch
-
elaborate argument against it, to be constitutional, upon the ground of the decision in Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. FernaldSearch
-
and was enforced without question in Pollard v. MooreSearch
-
N.H. 188, and in Town v. FaulknerSearch
-
since, the state court held its constitutionality to be settled by the former decisions. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. HeadSearch
-
Same v. WorcesterSearch
-
set it off to one and order him to compensate the others in money or else order the whole estate to be sold. King v. ReedSearch
-
Bentley v. LongSearch
-
Dock Co., 1 McCarter 480, S.C. on appeal nom. Manners v. BentleySearch
-
Mead v. MitchellSearch
-
Richardson v. MonsonSearch
-
either by apportioning the time and extent of use or by a sale of the right and a division of the proceeds. Smith v. SmithSearch
-
DeWitt v. HarveySearch
-
McGillivray v. EvansSearch
-
Hampshire, for more than eighty years, have made provision for compelling the repair of mills in such cases. Roberts v. PeaveySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial