State v. Ousatonic Water Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Application for a mandamus; brought to the Superior Court, and reserved, on a demurrer of the defendants to the application, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtPark, C. J.
The application for the writ of mandamus in this case contains the following paragraph: — “ Said attor*138ney moves this honorable court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring said company to alter the bed or course of said river road, at the places above indicated, [the road and places in it previously described in the application,] in such a manner as that public travel will not be obstructed by the water and ice in the manner above stated, or to signify cause to the contrary thereof,” &c.
The alternative writ of mandamus which issued from the court contains the following paragraph: — “…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Indianapolis & Cincinnati Railroad v. State ex rel. City of LawrenceburgIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Gray v. HarrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- President for erecting a Bridge over the River Lehigh v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Bell v. M'ClintockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Patterson v. VailSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hecht v. Boston Wharf Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Pleasure Beach Park Co. v. Bridgeport Dredge & Dock Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Diamond Match Co. v. Town of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
- Langin v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Tavano v. Waterbury Trust Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1935