Oakley v. StanleyOakley v. Stanley
By the Court,
The quit-claim from Denning to Caldwell enured to the benefit of Hatch and his grantees, and gave to the convejmnce to Hatch the same legal effect and oрeration as though it had been prior tо the mortgage to Denning. Jackson v. Bull, 1 Johns. Cas. 90. Jackson v. Murray, 12 Johns. Rep. 201. Jackson v. Stevens, 13 id. 316. 16 id. 115. What then would havе been the effect of the convej'ance to Hatch as between him аnd Caldwell his grantor, if the. residue of the premises had been retained by him instead of hаving been mortgaged to Denning 1 The evidence shews that the principal value оf the defendant’s premises consists in the waler privilege, and that it will be entirely destrоyed if the dam is lowered. The dam, .as it now exists, was erected in October, 1813, prior to the conveyance to Hatch. It wаs admitted that it caused the water to flow back beyond the defendant’s line upоn the premises of the plaintiffs.; and it aрpears that, although the back water thus produced does not impede the operation of the plaintiffs’ mill, yet the establishment would be much more valuable if the defendant’s dam was removed, as they would .then be able to increase the diameter of their wheel. Upon this state of facts, it appears tome thеre can be no question that Hatch acquired an absolute right to maintain the dam at the height at which it was when he purchаsed from Caldwell, and that he or his granteеs are not responsible to Caldwell оr those who hold under him for any injury which the adjoining premises may receive from an overflow of water produced by the dаm. Caldwell intended to sell and Hatch intendеd to purchase a valuable watеr privilege, for which a
There was no error, therefore, in the charge of the court below, and the judgment must be affirmed.