Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ronayne v. Loranger

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1887Published

Appeal from Monroe. (Joslin, J.) Bill to abate a nuisance. The facts are stated in the opinions.

1ConcurrenceCampbell, C. J.

I concur in tbe views of my Brother Mouse. I tbink, further, that no case is made which would allow complainants to join in the suit, which is multifarious.

ChampliN, J.

I have no doubt of the jurisdiction of the court of equity, in a proper case, not only to determine the question whether a nuisance in fact exists, but to make a decree that it be abated; but in such a case it must clearly appear that the complainant has title to the water-course, or the land under it, if it be a water course that is complained of, and that the nuisance is made out. Earl v. De Hart, 12 N. J. Eq. 280, 287; Van…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sheldon v. RockwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Hammond v. FullerNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
  3. Van Bergen v. Van BergenNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
  4. Wright v. DudleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Mann v. WilkinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1835

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

Powered by the Exa API