Ronayne v. Loranger
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Sheldon v. RockwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Hammond v. FullerNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Van Bergen v. Van BergenNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Wright v. DudleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
- Mann v. WilkinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1835