Lorman v. Benson
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne, as follows: “This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by Lorman against Benson. Plea, the general issue, with notice of license. “The cause was tried by the court without a jury.
Read the full summary
Case reserved from the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne, as follows: “This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by Lorman against Benson. Plea, the general issue, with notice of license. “The cause was tried by the court without a jury. “From the evidence adduced on the trial the court find the following facts: “At and before the time of the alleged trespass, one Anthony Dudgeon was the owner in fee of certain premises above the city of Detroit, and fronting upon the Detroit river, which was the locus in quo of the said trespass. On or about the 15th of November, 185V, he…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.:
The rights of the plaintiff in this case depend entirely upon the doctrines applicable to riparian proprietors upon the water communication which is known as Detroit river.
Some reference was made on the argument to the general system of law prevailing here, in view of the former history of the country; but we deem it useless to enter into any extended examination of this question. It is undoubtedly true that at one time the Custom of Paris was in force here. It was expressly abrogated by the Territorial Legislature in 1810, and probably applied to very few cases then, if to any.…
2Cited by89 opinions
- People v. NowackMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Scranton v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State v. EsserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Hilt v. WeberMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.