Decorah Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Wimiesheik Circuit Court. Action in chancery. The relief sought is the abatement and removal of a mill-dam, erected and maintained by defendants upon the same stream and below plaintiff’s mill, to such an extent that it will not interfere with jdaintiff’s rights connected with the water-power used at plaintiff’s mill. There was a decree directing the dam to be lowered to a specified extent, from which both parties appeal. The case has been before in this court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
I. When this cause was before in this court, we decided that defendants’ dam does interfere with plaintiff’s right, to the fall of the river and free use of the water-power utilized at its mill, and that it ought to be so far abated that it would cease to obstruct the natural flow of the water from defendants’ tail-*87race. Our conclusion upon this point of the case was expressed in the following language: “The plaintiff is also entitled, according to our ruling, to a decree that the defendants’ dam be so far abated as not to interfere with the power which the plaintiff has heretofore enjoyed,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bell v. M'ClintockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by7 opinions
- Turner v. HartMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Simplot v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1883
- Gibson v. FischerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- Moll v. McCauleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Watters v. Anamosa-Oxford Junction Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.