Palmer V Mulligan Analysis

During the early nineteenth century, the United States began to expand rapidly. Industry and factories began to become the dominant economic powerhouse in the United States, quickly overrunning the traditional farmer industry. During this time period resources, state legislatures, and judges began to bend towards those that were seen as expanding the economy rather than the bystanders. Law began to favor dynamic property that was seen as expanding the economy and doing good for the people of the country, rather than static or not expanding property. The priorities of the country began to change and can be seen through trial outcomes and the actions of the state legislatures.

Prior to this explosion of creative energy the law focused on the

precedents set before them, and used sic utere and prior appropriation to make their decisions. Sic utere states that no person shall do harm to another’s property. (Salyer). Prior appropriation states that those that arrive first on land have first say what to do with it and are able to control it how they wish. (Salyer). These principals can be seen in the court case Merritt v. Parker of 1795, in the case Merritt was seeking to recover damages sustained when Parker places obstructions to stop water from leaving Merritt’s rivulet. Parker had permission from the state legislature to erect a dam across the creek in order to get enough water to run his sawmill. Merritt then cut a trench from this dam to his own property, so that he could also run a sawmill, this rivulet that he cut emptied out through a small portion of Parker’s land. The court found in favor of Parker, saying that Merritt had no legal right to cut the trench and cause additional water flow over Parker’s land. Since it was causing damage to Parker’s land he had the right to block the water from his property. (Merritt v. Parker 1 N.J.L. 526; 1795 N.J. Sup. Ct. Lexis 20). The court used the conditions of sic utere to explain that Parker’s land was being damaged by Merritt’s actions, which is why they found in favor of Parker. Also Parker was on the land first, so he had prior appropriation to do with the creek what he will and he also had approval from the state legislature.
When industry began to conquer the economy in the early nineteenth century, the courts rulings began to favor those of improving the economy and taking risks.

Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people

are better off with a thriving economy and a high level of competition. Competition resulted in lower prices and better products for the public.
The law was not the only thing that adapted to the industrial economy and the promotion of competition, state legislatures began to adopt new laws and invest in new projects in order to promote competition. States began to pass new bankruptcy laws, these laws no longer threw people in jail when they could not pay their debts. (Salyer). The new bankruptcy laws passed by the states allowed for people to invest and open businesses, and if those businesses failed they had protection. Along with new laws states began to invest in corporations and establish charters with companies that will provide services to better the community. This can be seen Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1835), in the case the Charles River Bridge was suing for breach of contract claiming that their charter implied that no other bridge would be created during the contract. The state of Massachusetts entered a charter with the Charles River Bridge Company to build a bridge and then allowed them to tax for driving on the bridge for eighty years. Then the state entered another charter with the Warren Bridge Company that allowed them to build another bridge, but only tax for six years. After six years the bridge would be free and the Charles River Bridge would dramatically lose business. The court found that Massachusetts had the right to issue the second charter and there are no implied powers in a contract. (Hall 176). With new laws and investment in companies states began to promote competition and allow for a chance of failure, promoting the expanding of creative energy in the economy.
With the promotion of competition and creative energy in the state legislatures and the law, there were winners and losers in society.

The winners and losers are clearly demonstrated in the cases Ryan v. New York Central Railroad (1866) and Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad (1842). In Ryan v. New York Central Railroad, a fire broke out on a railroad train and eventually spread to Ryan’s house where it burned to the ground. It was found that the train company was not at fault because it could not control how the fire would spread or foresee the damages of their negligence. (Hall 211) In Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad, Farwell was suing because his hand was crushed by a train accident when another employee did not switch the train to the correct track. It was found that the employer was not responsible for the actions of their employee, moving away from the master and servant doctrine that was precedent. It also found that employees had to assume the risk of their work prior to taking the job, so they should ensure that they get paid enough money in order to assume the risk. This put the burden of injury on the the employee, and put making a safe working environment on the employee.(Hall 184). From these cases it became clear that the “winners” in the nineteenth century were those growing the economy, or the companies. In both cases it was found that the companies were not at fault and the burden of proof shifted to the employees and those affected by the

companies negligence. The “losers” became farmers, bystanders, and employees. The burden of proof became on them, and no longer were companies looking out for the best interest of everybody, but only looking for the cheapest way to make as much money as they could.
Throughout the early nineteenth century law and state legislatures saw a shift to favoring those that were expanding the economy. No longer did people look out for one another and ensure no damage was being caused by to their neighbors, but they were seeking to make the most money in the cheapest way. The “winners” became the companies and those people that were expanding the economy, however the “losers” were the bystanders whose properties were being destroyed. Employees and bystanders began to have to look out of themselves because they could not trust companies to do it for them.