Potter v. Froment
THOMAS F. POTTER v. EUGENE FROMENT, EUGENE VEUVE and RICHARD S. SWAIN
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court:
The complaint does not allege any special damage sustained by the plaintiff, and it was, therefore, error to admit evidence of the cost of boiling and skimming water for household purposes. So, the complaint failing to allege that the- plaintiff rented the farm, or was prevented from renting it by reason of the discoloration of the water in the stream, proof of diminution of rental value was inadmissible.
The cause is remanded with directions to strike out so much of the judgment as awards damages, appellant to recover costs of appeal.
Cited by
- Treadwell v. Whittier No. 11656 · 1889-09-24