Monticello Hydraulic Co. v. Loughry
Indiana Supreme Court
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
- In re HoweNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Buchan v. SumnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- White v. CarpenterNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Glidewell v. SpaughIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
- Keirsted v. AveryNew York Court of Chancery · 1832
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hays v. RegerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Foltz v. WertIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Blair v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Shirk v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Dalrymple v. Security Improvement Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.