Buhl v. Fort Street Union Depot Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error'to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The common council of the city of Detroit vacated that portion of Fourth street in said city extending from Congress street to Fort street. The defendant thereupon occupied the vacated • portion of the street for depot purposes, which of course resulted in closing the street to public travel. The action was had under authority of Act No. 94, Laws of 1891, amendatory to the “Union Depot Act,” so called. The amendatory section of 1891 provides that—
“ Any corporation organized under this act shall have power, with the consent of the common council of any city, or the village board of any…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Rigney v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Chicago v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Coster v. Mayor, Aldermen & CommonaltyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- City of Chicago v. Union Building Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Moore v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Spiek v. Department of TransportationMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Warren v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
- Department of Transportation v. TomkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
- Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Board of County Com'rs v. SlaughterNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1945
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.