Lucas v. Ashland Light, Mill & Power Co.

As T see the merits of this case, the affirmance of that part of the lower court’s decree denying an injunction to *567prevent defendant from overflowing the lands of plaintiffs deprives them of constitutional rights and leaves portions of their real estate in control of a trespasser. Entertaining this view, T am compelled to dissent. In giving the reasons by which I am guided, I prefer to state in my own way what I find in the record and the questions presented for determination.

The relief sought by plaintiffs is a perpetual injunction to prevent the maintaining of a dam across Wahoo creek near…