Legal Opinion

Hubbard v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1873PublishedCited by 69 opinions

Appeal in Chancery from Ottawa Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

Christiancy, Ch. J.

This was a bill for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying on the business of putting *16down “ drive wells,” called the “ American Drive Wells,” (consisting mainly of an iron tube driven into the ground, and a pump attached) and from selling or dealing in the tools or apparatus used for that purpose in the city of Grand Haven, and (as the bill expresses it) “the adjacent vicinity.”

The defendants Miller and Decker answered this bill, and defendant Akeley demurred generally. The case was heard in the court below upon pleadings and proofs, and the bill…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Many v. Beekman Iron Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1841
  2. Archibald v. ThomasNew York Supreme Court · 1824

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  2. Diamond Match Co. v. . RoeberNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. Innovation Ventures v. Liquid ManufacturingMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
  4. West Virginia Transportation Co. v. Ohio River Pipe Line Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Moore & Handley Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888

64 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