Legal Opinion

Preston v. Clark

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1927No. Docket No. 33PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I am at variance with the opinion of Mr. Justice BIRD. The mill of plaintiff Preston is five miles distant, by the stream, from the little dam erected by defendants on their own property, and the pond at Preston's mill backs water only about three-quarters of a mile. The mill of plaintiff Foltz is below Preston's. No prescriptive right of any kind obtains in this case. Defendants, by nonuser of their riparian right to erect a dam lost nothing to plaintiffs. The prescriptive right involved in Stock v. City of Hillsdale, 155 Mich. 375, was that of an upper proprietor to divert water from the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dumont v. KelloggMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Gregory v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Stock v. City of HillsdaleMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Chapel v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Kennedy v. Niles Water Supply Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stuart v. Detroit Finnish Co-Operative Summer Camp Assn.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Halstead v. YoungMichigan Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API