Thornton v. Smith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was commenced in May, 1864, iii the Hennepin County District Court, by Francis M. Thornton, plaintiff, against Eliza Smith, William R. Smith, Emily Webb and Edward Webb, defendants.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in May, 1864, iii the Hennepin County District Court, by Francis M. Thornton, plaintiff, against Eliza Smith, William R. Smith, Emily Webb and Edward Webb, defendants. The complaint alleges, that the plaintiff since the 12th day of April, 1860, has been and now is the owner of certain described lands in Hennepin county, through which a stream known as “ Little Falls Creek” runs; that in 1856, a dam was built across said creek, upon adjoining lands, to furnish water for the “ Richland Mill,” and that by the erection of such dam, the lands now owned by plaintiff were…
1Opinion of the Court
*20 By the Gowrt
Beret,- J.
This action is brought to effect
the removal of a dam by which the appellant claims that the water of. Little Balls Creek is so raised as to overflow and damage his land. In their second defense the respondents rely upon the statute of hmitations found in “ an act relating to mill-dams and mills ” on page 849, Pub. St. Sec. 17. To this defense the plaintiff demurs; and the demurrer brings before the court the question whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Stratton v. Allen et al., 7 Minn. 505.
It is insisted by the counsel for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1839
- Schoonmaker v. SheelyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
3Cited by2 opinions
- Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1893
- Slight v. GutzlaffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874