Folmar v. Folmar
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Probate Court of Crenshaw. In the matter of the application of Jesse Folmar, for authority to construct a mill-dam across “ King’s Mill creek,” a non-navigable water-course in said county, for the use of a mill to be erected “on the east side of said water-course,” on lands belonging to the petitioner, which were described as the “west half of the north-easi; quarter of section 83, township 9, range 19.” The petition was filed on the 23d February, 1880, and was…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Probate Court of Crenshaw. In the matter of the application of Jesse Folmar, for authority to construct a mill-dam across “ King’s Mill creek,” a non-navigable water-course in said county, for the use of a mill to be erected “on the east side of said water-course,” on lands belonging to the petitioner, which were described as the “west half of the north-easi; quarter of section 83, township 9, range 19.” The petition was filed on the 23d February, 1880, and was contested by George S. Folmar, on whose motion the first inquest of the jury was set aside ; but a venire de novo being…
1Opinion of the Court
BBICKELL, O. J.
Proceedings for authority of law to erect dams across water-courses not navigable, for the use of mills, gins or factories, are, under the statutes, instituted, conducted, and determined before the judge of probate of the county in which the mill, gin, or factory is proposed to be located.—Code of 1876, §§ 3555-79. It is upon the judge, and not upon the Court of Probate, jurisdiction is conferred. The jurisdiction is statutory, special, and limited. When, on error the regularity of its exercise is assailed, the record should discover every fact the statute declares essential to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martin v. RushtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Owen v. JordanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- Price v. Town of EarlhamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916