Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 U.S. 211

Beissell v. Sholl

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Beissellv.Sholl.1 Wagoner
  • Sholl.1 Wagoner

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1800-03-01

Cited in Bouvier (1839)’s definition of “Dam”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1800-03-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1832

4 state decisions

201800181018201830decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

CASE, for diverting a water course. The COURT left the facts to the jury, under this general statement of the law: 'That every man, in this country, has an unquestionable right, to erect a mill upon his own land; and to use the water, passing through his land, as he pleases: subject only to this limitation, that his mill must not be so constructed and employed, as to injure his neighbour's mill; and that, after using the water, he returns the stream to its ancient channel.'

1

Tried in the Circuit Court, Northampton county, June 1800, before SHIPPEN, C. J. and YEATES, J.

/4/us/211 · .json · Public domain