Legal Opinion

Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1886PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Livingston. (Newton, J.) Bill filed to enjoin interference with railway crossing. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

This bill was filed January 6, 1886, to prevent the defendant railroad from interfering with a crossing which complainant had just made under defendant’s road near Howell, in Livingston county. The alleged ground of complaint was that complainant had procured a condemnation of the right of way, and had obtained peaceable possession, and that complainant’s road was in full operation, and that defendant threatened to fill up the cut, and thus prevent further use of it.

The defense was, in substance, that there had been no valid condemnation, and no compliance with the law respecting such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Hathaway v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad v. Detroit & Bay City RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. San Antonio Water Co. v. BodenhamerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad v. Probate JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API