Wilkinson v. Dunkley-Williams Co.

The case has been here in several of its phases before. See 139 Mich. 621, 141 Mich. 409. In the first of these opinions a decree granting complainant an injunction was affirmed. In the last opinion it was held that the defendant had ignored the provisions of the decree and should be punished as for contempt, and the case was referred to the circuit court commissioner to take testimony to determine the extent of the punishment.

The decree affirmed in the first opinion reads in part as follows:

“That on the 10th day of May, 1903, the defendant, without consent of the owner thereof and without…