Legal Opinion

Monticello Hydraulic Co. v. Loughry

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1880No. 7326PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Front the White Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.

— The only question brought to our attention is whether the complaint is good on a demurrer for want of facts. The following are the material averments :

The Monticello Hydraulic Company was organized under an act which provided for its incorporation under that name, approved February 12th, 1848, and was empowered to construct a dam across the Tippecanoe river above and within one and one-half miles of Monticello, and to purchase and hold real estate, etc.; that said company did accordingly become, and is now, the owner in fee, and in the rightful possession, of the following described real…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In re HoweNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
  2. Buchan v. SumnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
  3. White v. CarpenterNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
  4. Glidewell v. SpaughIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
  5. Keirsted v. AveryNew York Court of Chancery · 1832

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hays v. RegerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Foltz v. WertIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Blair v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Shirk v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Dalrymple v. Security Improvement Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1902

14 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