Moody v. Town of Wetumpka
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
The hill of complaint in this ease does not proceed- upon the theory that the respondents’ land was subservient to the natural flow of water, but seeks to restrain said respondents from closing or obstructing a ditch running through their land which the city claims has been used by it as a drain or sewer for over 40 years, and that it has acquired an easement in said ditch by prescription. Therefore the case of Shanan v. Brown, 179 Ala. 425, 60 So. 891, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 792, and other cases cited to the effect that the rule as to drainage and the natural flow of water in a rural section…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stewart v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Hill v. WingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Alderman v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Shanan v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Finley v. HersheySupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- West v. WestSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. MasonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. CutrerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1947