Legal Opinion

Windfall Manufacturing Co. v. Patterson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1897No. 17,979PublishedCited by 27 opinions

From the Howard Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtHoward, J.

The appellees alleged in their complaint that the appellant was “threatening to and pro-ceding to drill a gas well” within 152 feet of appellees’ dwelling, and asked that the appellant be restrained from digging said well, and from digging any well, or laying pipes therefrom, “at any other point within 300 feet” of appellees’ property.

The complaint was in two paragraphs, to the first of which, named second in the record, there was a *415special paragraph of answer; and to this answer a demurrer was sustained. The cause was submitted to the court for trial, and judgment rendered enjoining the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Owen v. PhillipsIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Gilbert v. ShowermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Barnard v. SherleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Keiser v. LovettIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Dalton v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1896

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Melker v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Poultryland Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  3. Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Wernke v. HalasIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Fenning v. SG Holding Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API