Huyck v. Bailey
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Argued February-16, 1894. Decided May 18, 1894. Bill to restrain the -cutting of timber on complainant’s land. Defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This is an injunction bill to restrain-defendant from proceeding to cut saw timber on lands owned by complainant.
The bill alleges, in substance, that the defendant has cut- and removed a large amount of timber from the premises, and threatens to continue to do so; that he has already cut a large amount, to wit, of the value of $360, and that by so cutting he has committed waste upon the premises, and -irreparable injury thereto, materially lessening the value thereof; that if he is permitted to cut down *225the timber and remove the same, and commit waste, the value of the premises will be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hayes v. LivingstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Harlow v. Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Fuller v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Hart v. CarpenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Ruhlig v. WiegertMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Kitchen v. KitchenMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Kirchen v. RemengaMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- McVannel v. Pure Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Stevens v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Bruun v. HansenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.