Ames v. Cannon River Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Eice county, Lord, J., presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
Plaintiffs and defendant are upper and lower proprietors of the Cannon river, a non-navigable stream, .and of the land on each side — the plaintiffs owning above, and the defendant immediately below, and each having a mill and mill-dam. Plaintiffs complain that defendant erected and has maintained and maintains its dam at a height which sets the water back, and raises it above its natural level on their premises, so as to obstruct their wheels, and demand damages, and that defendant’s dam be reduced, taken down and abated, so as to relieve their land from the back water. The answer denies the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. RathbunNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- People v. VaneNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- People v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Dorman v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
3Cited by10 opinions
- Erickson v. Minnesota & Ontario Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Allen v. Thornapple Electric Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1893
- First National Bank v. HolanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Poynter v. County of Otter TailSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.