Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Washtenaw, the case having been transferred from Keweenaw. Injunction. The writ was denied and complainant appealed. The facts are in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
This is an injunction bill, and the facts are very simple. Defendant at a cost of some sixty thousand dollars erected a stamp mill on the banks of Hill creek in the year 1874, and has since been operating it for copper mining purposes. As a result of its operations large quantities of sand are carried down by the waters of the stream and deposited on the bottom lands below. The evidence leads to the belief that it would be impossible to carry on the mining operations of the defendant with profit unless this is permitted. The year following the erection of defendant’s mill, complainant…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Ashley v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Gilbert v. ShowermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Arimond v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Company for Erecting & Supporting a Toll Bridge v. Connecticut River Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land and Water CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Hulbert v. California Etc. Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Mackenzie v. Frank M. Pauli Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.