6 · _ FEDERAL REPORTER.
Corbin,said Back told said Corbin, Reed Tourtelotte, and Lyman
Moore, son of Thomas Moore, that Mr. Ballard, in behalf of the plain-
tiff, had asked him his price for the saw-mill property, and that he
had named $1,300.
On the next day said Corbin, said Tourtelotte, and said Thomas
_ Moore bought said property of said Back for $1,300, which was its fair
value; said Corbin and said Tourtelotte each owning an undivided
fourth, and said Moore owning an undivided half thereof. Said Moore
took one-half of his interest for the benefit of said Lyman Moore.
Said purchasers did not know that said Back had made the agree-
ment that the plaintiff might raise its dam, and he would sell the right
of flowage for a fair compensation, and that in reliance thereon the
plaintiff had commenced its work. All knew that the dam was be-
ing raised. Said Thomas Moore knew that the plaintiff had been
negotiating with said Back for the purchase of some right in said prop-
erty, and that said Back had refused to sign the papers which pro-
fessed to state the result of the negotiation. All knew of the propo-
sition of Ballard to purchase said Back’s property, and all believed
. that the proposition was made for the purpose of obtaining the right
to flow the Mashapaug mills by the Holland dam, and that if the
property was purchased .by the plaintiff it would be in danger of being
i disused as a saw-mill, whereas its continuance as such they thought
was important to the village of Mashapaug, and to the woodland in
which said Corbin and said Moore were interested. The dam was
completed December 22, 1865.
After said purchase said Corbin and said Thomas Moore both truly
informed saidBallard that the object of their purchase was not to in-
terfere with the plaintiffs plans in regard to the dam, but to secure
the benefits of the said mill tothe village and to the land-owners, be-
cause they feared that if the plaintiff bought it, it would be discon-
tinued. It was agreed by said purchasers and said Ballard, in Jan-
uary, 1866, and before there was any Howage upon said wheel, that
the water should be put upon the wheels of said mill, and when the
owners ascertained what the effect was, they would accept a fair com-
pensation for the permanent damage. The water was set back upon
the wheels in process of time. Negotiations commenced between said
Corbin and said Ballard, but no agreement was reached. It suffi-
ciently appears from the acts and conduct of the defendants that this
license to How was continued until December 1, 1880, when it was
revoked by written notice of revocation, which was given to the plain-
tiff. Reed Tourtelotte sold his interest in said premises to Lyman
Moore by deed dated June 17, 1872.
By complaint dated March 26, 1881, the defendants brought a suit
against the plaintiff before the superior court for the county of Tol-
” land, claiming $400 damages for trespass by ilowage against the
` wheels of said mill. Said complaint also prays for an injunction
against the flowing of water upon said wheel by the plaintiff.