Stadler v. Missouri River Power Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana
In Equity. Suit for injunction. The complainants brought this action against the defendant corporation, which is a citizen and a resident of the state of Hew Jersey, praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant from keeping or maintaining a dam across the Missouri river at any greater height than it was on August 1, 1902, or from erecting or maintaining any structures or works whereby the waters of the Missouri river are raised or kept back or prevented from flowing…
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit for injunction. The complainants brought this action against the defendant corporation, which is a citizen and a resident of the state of Hew Jersey, praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant from keeping or maintaining a dam across the Missouri river at any greater height than it was on August 1, 1902, or from erecting or maintaining any structures or works whereby the waters of the Missouri river are raised or kept back or prevented from flowing over the uppermost surface of the defendant’s dam, as the same existed on August 1, 1902, and for general relief.…
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). I have given very careful consideration to the evidence, and, without reciting in detail the testimony, will briefly state my conclusions in respect to the whole case:
Stadler and Kaufman, by their deed of conveyance, Exhibit A, granted to defendants, among other tracts, lot 4 in section 31, without reference to its being an island. And at law it would have made no difference in the validity of their title whether there was or was not an island of part of said lot, provided they owned it at the time of their grant to defendant. Now, defendant, having become…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bailey v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Jackson v. StackhouseNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Burrow v. Terre Haute & Logansport RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Updegrove v. Penna. Sch. V. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.