Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Prentiss

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1882PublishedCited by 25 opinions

Appeal from Alpena. Injunction. Bill dismissed. Complainant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.

The complainant asks equitable relief in the protection of certain riparian rights, which she claims the defendant is encroaching upon.

*89Samantha Hitchcock, as the owner of certain premises running to Thunder bay, platted a portion thereof in 1866. According to this plat a strip of land two rods wide, lying between the lots nearest the waters of the bay and the water line, was reserved.

On the 27th of September, 1866, she conveyed to complainant lot five in block two on this plat, and this lot ■extended to the above-mentioned reserve line.

Afterwards and in August, 1872, Mrs. Hitchcock conveyed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rice v. RuddimanMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Watson v. PetersMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Pere Marquette Boom Co. v. AdamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Bay City Gas-Light Co. v. Industrial WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Thompson v. EnzMichigan Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Thies v. HowlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Lincoln v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Backus v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. v. South Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894

20 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