Legal Opinion

Stillwater Water Co. v. Farmer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 27, 1903No. Nos. 13,213—(206)PublishedCited by 31 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff! from an order of the district court for Washington county, Williston, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

This was an action brought to restrain the defendant from interfering with subsurface waters, which, percolating through the ground, served in part to supply a spring situated upon plaintiff’s property, which spring the latter uses to furnish its patrons, the people of Stillwater, with water for domestic use; the plaintiff’s business under its charter being to provide the city and its inhabitants with water for both fire and domestic purposes. For other than domestic purposes water is taken from McKusiek Lake by plaintiff company, but it must rely upon this spring, which is quite large, and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ohio Oil Company v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Chatfield v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
  3. Pixley v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
  4. Collins v. Chartiers V. Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  5. Smith v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1899

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Tuttle v. BuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
  2. Harding v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
  4. Patrick v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  5. City of Corpus Christi v. City of PleasantonTexas Supreme Court · 1955

26 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