Rushton v. Martin
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Probate Court of Crenshaw. Tried before the Hon. G. W. Thagard. This was a proceeding under chapter III, title 6, part 1, 508 Eevised Code, to obtain permission to erect a dam, for the purpose of erecting a public grist mill, to grind for toll. The facts of the case, and the errors assigned, are set out in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Probate Court of Crenshaw. Tried before the Hon. G. W. Thagard. This was a proceeding under chapter III, title 6, part 1, 508 Eevised Code, to obtain permission to erect a dam, for the purpose of erecting a public grist mill, to grind for toll. The facts of the case, and the errors assigned, are set out in the opinion. Insisted, 1. That it is not sufficient for the inquest to show the jury were duly sworn, but it must affirmatively show what they were sworn and charged to try. — Owen v. Jordan, 27 Ala. 608. 2. The jury of inquest finding this mill dam would probably endanger…
1Opinion of the Court
PECK, O. J.
This ease originated in the probate court of Crenshaw county, and was a proceeding in that court, under chapter 3d, page 503 of the Revised Code of Alabama, instituted by the appellee, to obtain permission to erect a dam across “ Capp’s Mill Creek,” a water-course in that county, not navigable, for the purpose of building a water grist mill to grind for toll.
The petition states that the applicant was the owner of the land on both sides of the stream, and, consequently, the proceeding, in the first instance, was ex parte, no notice being necessary to be given to anybody.
Upon the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Forrester v. Forrester's Adm'rsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1867
- Morgan's Adm'r v. Morgan's DistributeesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- McAllilley v. HortonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- McCulley v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893