TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Osborn v. City of Ann Arbor

Osborn v. City of Ann Arbor, 155 N.W. 1102 (Mich. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 21, 1915
Docket
No. 82
Citations
155 N.W. 1102189 Mich. 961915 Mich. LEXIS 756
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 5
Headnotes
Waters — Municipal Corporations — Riparian Rights — Diverting Stream: — Demurrer—Appeal and Error. Upon a bill in chancery to restrain a municipal corporation from diverting water by artesian wells from tbe neighborhood of complainant’s wells, an order overruling defendant’s demurrer is affirmed in order that proofs may be taken to assist the court in determining the question, because of its great importance in this State.
Summary
Appeal from Washtenaw; Kinne, J. Bill by Frederick Osborn and another against the city of Ann Arbor and others for an injunction. From a decree overruling defendants’ demurrer, complainants appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The bill of complaint in this cause is filed to restrain the defendant city from taking for public use water from property adjoining the property of the complainants. Complainants claim that in doing this it takes water from the complainants’ property and the region thereabout, and thus destroys the value of the land, and deprives the owner of the land of the water for domestic and agricultural purposes, without condemnation proceedings, or without compensating the owner for his loss. An appeal is taken to this court from an order overruling the demurrer filed by the defendant. At the hearing of the case before us it was *97 announced by the court that because of the importance of the questions involved we hesitated to decide the question.upon the allegations in the bill of complaint, and therefore would sustain the order overruling the demurrer, so that an answer might be filed and proofs taken. The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1917: 31918: 11919: 119172026peak 1917 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor163 N.W. 109 (Mich. 1917)
  2. Grand Rapids Trust Co. v. Nichols165 N.W. 667 (Mich. 1917)
  3. Comstock v. Deane163 N.W. 916 (Mich. 1917)
  4. Dewey v. City of Flint171 N.W. 412 (Mich. 1919)
  5. Elwell v. Pierce166 N.W. 874 (Mich. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Dewey v. City of Flint171 N.W. 412 (Mich. 1919)
  2. Elwell v. Pierce166 N.W. 874 (Mich. 1918)
  3. Grand Rapids Trust Co. v. Nichols165 N.W. 667 (Mich. 1917)
  4. Comstock v. Deane163 N.W. 916 (Mich. 1917)
  5. Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor163 N.W. 109 (Mich. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list