Legal Opinion

City of Greencastle v. Hazelett

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1864PublishedCited by 19 opinions

APPEAL from the Putnam Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtErazer, J.

The complaint avers that Hazelett is the owner of a tract of land near Greencastle, which has peculiar value as a residence property, on account of a fine spring thereon, supplying abundant water for domestic uses; that the place has been improved, at great expense, for a residence, by the erection of valuable buildings near the spring; that the city has purchased an adjoining tract, which it is about to use for the burial of the dead; that the surface drainage of a portion of the proposed cemetery grounds leads into Hazelett’s spring; that there are also subterraneous streams passing through…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Chatfield v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
  2. Roath v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
  3. Macy v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Harwood v. Benton & JonesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
  5. New Albany & Salem Railroad v. PetersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Taylor v. FickasIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  2. People's Gas Co. v. TynerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Lacy v. City of OskaloosaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
  4. Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  5. Barclay v. AbrahamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903

14 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