Kirkendall v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Lyon County. The petition in the court below sets forth substantially: That the plaintiff owned the fee to the land upon both sides of Cottonwood creek, in Lyon county,describing the land; that defendants are owners, and have erected a ínilldam upon the piece of. land, describing it, lying on said creek below the foregoing described piece; that, by the dam, defendants have flowed back the waters of said creek upon said lands of plaintiff, to the depth of three…
Read the full summary
Error from Lyon County. The petition in the court below sets forth substantially: That the plaintiff owned the fee to the land upon both sides of Cottonwood creek, in Lyon county,describing the land; that defendants are owners, and have erected a ínilldam upon the piece of. land, describing it, lying on said creek below the foregoing described piece; that, by the dam, defendants have flowed back the waters of said creek upon said lands of plaintiff, to the depth of three feet, and have flowed a ford upon said land, belonging to plaintiff, and raised the waters thereon to the same height, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kingman, C. J.
This was an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants, who were the defendants below, from raising their mill dam, thereby doing injury to the. plaintiff.
The facts set forth in the petition are these: The plaintiff is the owner, in fee, of certain described lands lying on both sides of Cottonwood creek, in Lyon county. The defendants are owners of another tract of land lying upon the same creek, below that of plaintiff, and have erected a milldam thereon, by means of which they have flowed, back the water of said creek upon the plaintiff’s land to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Poirier v. FetterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Rolens v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Harden v. MetzCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1899