Mason v. Hoyle

56 Conn. 255, 14 A. 786 (1888)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mason v. Hoyle

Connecticut Supreme Court
56 Conn. 255, 14 A. 786 (1888)

Facts

Charles Mason (plaintiff) operated a saw and grist mill using power obtained via a waterwheel run by a small dam and pond. Upstream, James Hoyle (defendant) operated a woolen mill, also supplied with water from a small dam on the stream and a pond but also through steam power. For many years, the flow of the river was sufficient to power both mills except in dry seasons. In 1881, Hoyle enlarged the pond, diverting almost all of the natural flow of the river to fill the pond. Subsequently, during the summer months when flow was low, Mason did not have sufficient water available to power his mill. Additionally, when the enlarged pond reached capacity and Hoyle switched from steam power to water, the released water overflowed Mason’s pond, running to waste. The predictable seasonality of the flow meant that there was insufficient water in the summer to serve both uses; thus, when Hoyle detained the water in the dry season, this denied Mason the use of his mill. It took five days of water diversion into the reservoir to run Hoyle’s equipment for only five hours. Because the seasonal water scarcity was regular and anticipated and Hoyle had installed machinery that required an amount of power that was greatly disproportionate to the capacity of the stream in the dry season, Hoyle could operate his mill using water power only for short and intermittent periods. Mason sued Hoyle, arguing that Hoyle’s diversion of the water and detainment for long periods of time was an unreasonable use of the stream.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Loomis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership