Tye v. Catching
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
•Case 92 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The appellant Jackson was not a necessary party defendant, and the court erred in permitting appellee to make him a defendant. (Taylor v. Moran, 4 Met., 127.) 2. Amended petition not good, because it fails to allege that Jackson had been requested to reduce the height of the dam.
Read the full summary
•Case 92 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The appellant Jackson was not a necessary party defendant, and the court erred in permitting appellee to make him a defendant. (Taylor v. Moran, 4 Met., 127.) 2. Amended petition not good, because it fails to allege that Jackson had been requested to reduce the height of the dam. (Hill v. Barrett, 14 B. Mon., 84; Collins v. Blackburn, 14 B. M., 254; Riggs v. Maltby, 2 Met., 89; L. & P. Canal Co. v. Murphy, 9 Bush, 527; West v. L., C. & L. R. R., 8 Bush, 406; Barring v. Commonwealth, 2 Duv., 95.) .3. The judgment of the court is…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellee erected a dam and constructed a saw and gristmill on Little Laurel river, a nOn-navigable stream. Prior to this, appellant Tye was the owner of a saw-mill, run by the water power of the same stream, and located about one. mile below the dam and mill of appellee. Shortly after appellee’s mill had gone into operation, appellant repaired his. dam, and, as charged by plaintiff appellee here, ‘ ‘ unlawfully raised it higher than it was at the time of defendant’s purchase or any time prior thereto,” and that by reason of the increased height of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- White v. HoweCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942
- Williamson v. YinglingIndiana Supreme Court · 1884