Dunlap v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & Grand Trunk Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland. (Stickney, J.) Case. Defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
Trespass on the case. The declaration contains a single count, and a copy is given in the margin.* The defense was that the acts constituting the supposed *472grievance were done by the railroad company and its servants in the condemnation and appropriation of the land for its corporate purposes.
On the trial of the case the following facts were developed: The railroad company instituted proceedings in November, 1880, to condemn the premises in question for railroad purposes under the general railroad law of the State. Commissioners were appointed by the circuit court, who proceeded to view the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Toledo, Ann Arbor & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. DunlapMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Hubbard v. BrainardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Johnson v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Griffin v. WilcoxIndiana Supreme Court · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Massa v. NastriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. ArenzSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Cusick v. FeldpauschMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- Heilman v. HeilmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Devlin v. MorseMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.