Pinney v. Luce
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Yellow Medicine county, Baxter, L, presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtColliNS, J.
These litigants are the owners of separate tracts of land situate upon opposite banks of a water-course, the plaintiffs tract extending above and below that belonging to the defendant. In the stream where it passes defendant’s land there are rapids for about 900 feet, with a fall of some 5 feet; The plaintiff has made no attempt to-use the water for the propulsion of machinery, and although *368the court below seems to have assumed that these rapids created a water-power for plaintiff, as well as for defendant, there was no testimony tending to show that the stream could be utilized for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tyler v. WilkinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1827
- Parker v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
- Wadsworth v. TillotsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1843
- Platt v. Johnson & RootNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Morrill v. Saint Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. SeifertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Petraborg v. ZontelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Meyers v. Lafayette Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901