Legal Opinion

City of Big Rapids v. Comstock

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1887PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Bill to enjoin an alleged encroachment on a public street.' Defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The city of Big Eapids filed its bill of complaint, alleging, among other things, that two of the principal avenues and streets of said city are Michigan avenue and Maple street, and that said streets intersect each other at about the center of the business portion of said city, and are the two principal business streets therein; that one Daniel F. Comstock is in possession of lot 1, in block 20, of the original plat of the village (now’city) of Big Eapids, claiming to be the owner thereof, and of the building or buildings situate thereon; that the said land and buildings above described are…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gregory v. KnightMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Hall v. RoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Krause v. City of El PasoTexas Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Matthews v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Roy v. Chevrolet Motor Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Beaverton Power Co. v. Wolverine Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Pastorino v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1914

8 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