Doan v. Metcalf
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jones District Court. In November, 18J2, plaintiff filed his petition in chancery wherein II. C. Metcalf was made a defendant, alleging that in 1870, plaintiff was the owner of certain premises situated upon the Wapsipinicon river, in Jones county, whereon were two mills propelled by power obtained from the water of the river.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jones District Court. In November, 18J2, plaintiff filed his petition in chancery wherein II. C. Metcalf was made a defendant, alleging that in 1870, plaintiff was the owner of certain premises situated upon the Wapsipinicon river, in Jones county, whereon were two mills propelled by power obtained from the water of the river. In that year he sold and eonveyed to defendant a portion of the premises whereon was situated one of the mills, a saw mill, the other being a flouring mill. The deed conveying this property, after proper descriptions of the jiremises, grants the right to use…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
i. water tition.' pai" I. The relief sought in the petition is the settlement of the interest of each party in the water conducted by the flume from plaintiff’s dam, and a partition of the water allotting to each his just share. In cases of this kind when parties have rights to determinable portions of water used for propelling machinery, their interests may be partitioned when it is practicable to do so. Cooper v. The Cedar Rapids Water Power Co., 42 Iowa, 398.
_.__. conveyance. II. In this case the first thing to be determined is the interest of the respective parties in the water…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cooper v. Cedar Rapids Water Power Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Appleton Paper & Pulp Co. v. Kimberly & Clark Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Ficklen v. Fredericksburg Power Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1922