Legal Opinion

State v. Minneapolis Mill Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 17, 1879PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Case certified from the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.

The defendant is a corporation, organized and acting under a charter found in Laws 185(5, c. 145. By section 9 of the charter, the company is “authorized, for the purpose of the improvement of the water-power above and below the Falls of St. Anthony, in the - Mississippi river, to maintain the present dams and sluices, and to cons tract dams, canals and water sluices, erect mills, buildings or other structures, for the purpose of manufacturing in any of its branches, or improving any water-power owned or possessed by said company, in such-manner and to such extent as shall be, authorized by…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  4. Crookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  5. Eastman v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890

3 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