Woodin v. Wentworth
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Bay. (Green, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. It is the .rule of law in this State that as between upper and lower proprietors on streams, each has the right to a fair participation and the reasonable use of the water, and an injury to one which is incident to the reasonable enjoyment of this common right by another is not subject to action; in such case the only foundation for an action is the damage caused by such use of said waters as would be beyond the…
Read the full summary
Error to Bay. (Green, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. It is the .rule of law in this State that as between upper and lower proprietors on streams, each has the right to a fair participation and the reasonable use of the water, and an injury to one which is incident to the reasonable enjoyment of this common right by another is not subject to action; in such case the only foundation for an action is the damage caused by such use of said waters as would be beyond the reasonable use of the same: Dumont v. Kellogg 29 Mich. 420 ; Pitts v. Lancaster Mills 13 Met. 156. cited Allison v. Chandler 11…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
It appears from the record in this case, that, during the year 1882, the plaintiff was in possession of and used, and had for many years previous thereto, two mills in the township of Sherman, in Isabella county. These mills were run by water-power upon Chippewa river. One was a grist-mill and the other a saw-mill, and stood side by side, and were joined together, and located about nine miles below the junction of the north and south branches of the •Chippewa, which constitute the main stream. The defendants at the same time possessed and controlled a dam known as the “ Hudson Dam,” and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dumont v. KelloggMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Buchanan v. Grand River & Greenville Log Running Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Hoxsie v. HoxsieMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Pettibone v. MaclemMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pickens v. Coal River Boom & Timber Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
- John Hutchinson Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Williams v. Island City Milling Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Hurxthal v. St. Lawerence Boom & Mfg. Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Valparaiso City Water Co. v. DickoverIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.