
    Barret v. Hosmer.
    Where an ancient grant is made to erect a mill and raise a dam without limitation,. a long course of practice will determine the construction of the grant.
    Action for a nuisance; by means of the defendant’s raising his mill-dam and overflowing the plaintiff’s meadow, etc.
    The defendant plead in bar — A grant from the proprietors of Woodstock, to William Bartholomew, made in April, A. D. 1687, of the privilege of erecting a grist-mill and dam at this place; that a mill and dam were accordingly erected by him, and had ever since been kept up and used by him, and those claiming under him; that his whole right and interest, had come down and vested in the defendant; and that said dam was in the same place, where it had ever been; and was ten inches higher than it used to be, it being necessary in order to raise a sufficient head of water to answer the purposes of said mill.
    Plaintiff replied — That he had been possessed of his said meadow about forty years, and ever enjoyed it without molestation, until within a few years last past, the defendant erected his dam ten rods further up said stream, viz. twelve rods from the pitch of the falls, and raised it ten inches higher than it had been before; whereby his meadow and grass were overflowed, etc.
    Defendant affirmed his plea, and traversed said dam’s being twelve rods from the pitch of the falls. Demurrer.
    Judgment —The defendant’s rejoinder insufficient.
   By the Court.

Many of the ancient grants, made to individuals, of the privilege of erecting mills and dams, upon streams of water, are very general and have no lindtation, with respect to the height, they might raise the waters, and flow the country round; they are therefore to be restricted by reason and justice; a grantee by practice fixes limits to his own grant, which he may not afterwards overleap, to the prejudice of another.  