City of Logansport v. Uhl

Decision Date19 February 1885
Docket Number11,989
Citation99 Ind. 531
PartiesCity of Logansport v. Uhl et al
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Rehairing Date: April 4, 1885

Reported at: 99 Ind. 531 at 546.

From the Cass Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

D. P Baldwin, D. D. Dykeman, W. T. Wilson, G. C. Taber, J. C Nelson and Q. A. Myers, for appellant.

D. B. McConnell, R. Magee, S. T. McConnell, D. C. Justice and C. E. Taber, for appellees.

OPINION

Niblack, J.

This was a suit for an injunction. The complaint was filed on the 5th day of February, 1883, and, by amendment, became a complaint in two paragraphs:

The first paragraph was as follows:

"Dennis Uhl and Charles H. Uhl, plaintiffs, complain of the city of Logansport, and the trustees of the water-works of the city of Logansport, to wit: William H. Johnson Thomas Austin and Alfred U. McAllister, and respectfully show to the court that the plaintiffs are partners, doing business under the firm name and style of D. & C. H. Uhl; that they are now, and have been for many years, engaged in the business of manufacturing flour upon the banks of the Eel river, in the city of Logansport, in said county; that as such partners, and as a part of their partnership assets, the plaintiffs are the owners of the following described water-powers, water-rights, mill-races, mill-dams, and real estate on Eel river in the said county of Cass, and State of Indiana, to wit: The present and existing dam across Eel river, opposite Elm street, and below the covered wooden bridge at the end of Bridge street, in the city, which flows the water of said river back to the foot of what was formerly Hamilton & Taber's mill-race, and now owned by the defendant, the city of Logansport, and all the water-power, and water-rights from the said Hamilton & Taber mill-race to the mouth of Eel river, together with a mill-race and all the real estate between Eel river and the south side of Front street in said city, from the said dam to the mouth of Eel river, together with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging. Also a three-acre tract of land at the foot of their said mill-race, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a stake at the mouth of Eel river, the original corner of three sections of land granted to Joseph Barron, Sr., in Cass county; thence north along the east line of the said grant or reservation, five (5) chains and forty (40) links, to a stone on the said line; thence south forty-six (46) degrees west five (5) chains and thirty-eight (38) links to a stone; thence five (5) chains and fifty (50) links to the Wabash river; thence up the said river, with the meanders thereof, to the place of beginning, the said lands being a part of the water-power on said Eel river; that the plaintiffs are the owners in fee of all the water-power, water-privileges, and water-rights on Eel river from the mouth of the said Hamilton & Taber mill-race to the mouth of said Eel river; that they have been the owners thereof for more than twenty years immediately past, and have been in the peaceable enjoyment of the same, they and their grantors, for more than fifty years; that they are the owners, except as hereinafter stated, of a valuable dam on the said stream of water, upon which they have expended ten thousand dollars; that they and their grantors have constructed a mill-race from the said dam, down and along the said Eel river, upon their aforesaid lands, with head-gates, at a cost of the full sum of ten thousand dollars; that at the mouth of the said race, upon their said real estate, the plaintiffs have constructed large flouring mills, and supplied them with valuable machinery; that they have erected suitable and valuable houses for storing grain, as also other necessary and suitable buildings to be used by them in their said business; that the said buildings cost the plaintiffs, and are of the value of, thirty thousand dollars; that for the past twenty-five years the plaintiffs have used, operated and enjoyed the same in the manufacture of flour, feed, and in storing grain and other property; that the said water-power, improved as aforesaid, together with the mills, machinery and buildings thereto attached, are of the value of one hundred thousand dollars; that the defendant, the city of Logansport, is a growing manufacturing city, and the plaintiffs' said water-power, water-rights, and property aforesaid, are within the corporate limits of the said defendant; the said city is also a great railroad center, within whose corporate limits are extensive railroad offices and shops, in the operation of which great quantities of water are used by the several railroad companies operating the same, all of which water is furnished and sold by the said city, defendant, to the said companies, through her water-works to be hereinafter mentioned, and for these reasons, the said water is rapidly increasing in value, and plaintiffs aver that they have never at any time relinquished any of their rights to nor interests in the said water, waterpowers, water-rights and water-privileges to any person or corporation.

"Plaintiffs further aver and charge that since the making of the aforesaid improvements, to wit: In the year 1876 the defendant, the city of Logansport, purchased from Messrs. Cecil & Wilson the upper contiguous water-power, including the mill, millrace, upper dam, and all the privileges and the appurtenances to the same belonging, being the same formerly owned by Hamilton & Taber, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining, appurtenant thereto, water-works, ostensibly for fire protection, and to supply citizens with pure water; and that in pursuance of the said purpose the said defendant erected upon the lands purchased of Cecil & Wilson, and now is maintaining and operating her contemplated water-works, on Eel river in the said city, immediately above the plaintiffs' aforesaid property, consisting of a pump-house, with all needed machinery, deep wells, and water pipes, extending from the said pump-house and wells into all parts of the said city of Logansport, by means whereof the said defendant is daily and continuously drawing and diverting from the said Eel river, above the plaintiffs' said dam and water-power, immense quantities of water, to wit, ----- gallons, twenty-five horse-power per day, which said water is permanently diverted from the said Eel river and never returned thereto; that the defendants are now, and have been for more than five years immediately past, diverting each and every day, from the said Eel river, above the plaintiffs' said property, fully ----- gallons, the same being equal to twenty-five horse-power, which said water is sold to sundry and divers citizens of the said city of Logansport for sundry purposes, for which the defendant, the said city, has received and still annually receives ten thousand dollars; that the defendant, the city of Logansport, is threatening, and intends to and will maintain and operate said water-works, and permanently divert the water of Eel river as aforesaid forever; that the quantity of water thus permanently diverted from the said Eel river is yearly increasing as the said city increases in population, as manufactories increase in numbers and capacity, and as the demands of the citizens for water increase; that there is great danger of the defendants, ultimately and before many years, diverting such large quantities of water from Eel river in the manner aforesaid as to materially injure and damage the plaintiffs' said water-power, and finally destroy it.

"Plaintiffs also aver that they are preparing to use and utilize part of their said water by selling or leasing all of the same not now utilized and used by themselves to manufacturers who contemplate erecting extensive manufactories upon the said property, and are now intending and are ready to do so, but are prevented from so doing by the aforesaid wrongful acts of the defendants, to the annual damage of the plaintiffs in the sum of two thousand dollars.

"Plaintiffs also aver that they have not, nor has either of them, nor has any of their grantors, at any time, in any manner, granted the defendants, nor anybody else, in any capacity, their consent, permission, license, or privilege in any manner or form, to divert any water from Eel river above their aforesaid property, nor has either of the defendants, in any manner, at any time, acquired the right to divert water from said Eel river above the plaintiffs' aforesaid property.

"While the plaintiffs hereby and at all times deny the right of the defendants or anybody to divert water from the said Eel river without plaintiffs' consent, they hereby consent that the defendants may, through their said water-works, at times of fire and for the purpose of suppressing fires, divert the water from said river in all needed quantities for said fire purposes. They do this as citizens of Logansport interested in her prosperity, and willing thus to contribute to the public good in times of public calamity.

"Plaintiffs also aver that after the completion of the said works, the defendant, the city of Logansport, duly established according to law, a board of three trustees of the said water-works; that the aforesaid William H. Johnson, Thomas Austin and Alfred U. McAllister are the duly elected, qualified and acting trustees of the water-works of the city of Logansport aforesaid, and hence are made defendants of this action. Wherefore the plaintiffs pray that upon the final hearing of this cause, the defendants, their agents and their employees be perpetually restrained and enjoined from diverting water from said Eel river, at any time, except during times of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Canady v. Coeur d'Alene Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1911
    ... 120 P. 830 21 Idaho 77 HULDAH A. CANADY, Appellant, v. COEUR D'ALENE LUMBER CO., a Foreign Corporation, and CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents Supreme Court of Idaho December 23, 1911 ... MUNICIPAL ... CORPORATION-VACATION ... 652, 32 S.W. 651; James v ... Kansas, 83 Mo. 567; Smith v. Sedalia Ry., 152 ... Mo. 283, 53 S.W. 907, 48 L. R. A. 711; Logansport v. Uhl, 99 ... Ind. 531, 49 Am. Rep. 109.) ... SULLIVAN, ... J. Stewart, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur ... OPINION ... ...
  • Robertson Lumber Co. v. City of Grand Forks
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1914
    ... ... favor, plaintiff would be estopped. Palmer v ... Stumph, 29 Ind. 329; Hellenkamp v. Lafayette, ... 30 Ind. 192; Evansville v. Pfisterer, 34 Ind. 36, 7 ... Am. Rep. 214; Lafayette v. Fowler, 34 Ind. 140; ... Muncey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 409; Logansport v ... Uhl, 99 Ind. 531, 50 Am. Rep. 109; Peters v ... Griffee, 108 Ind. 121, 8 N.E. 727; Taber v ... Ferguson, 109 Ind. 227, 9 N.E. 723; Ross v ... Stackhouse, 114 Ind. 200, 16 N.E. 501; Prezinger v ... Harness, 114 Ind. 491, 16 N.E. 495; Western Paving & Supply Co. v. Citizens' ... ...
  • Martindale v. Town of Rochester
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1908
    ... ... [86 N.E. 323] ... two weekly publications, in a newspaper of general ... circulation, published in such city or town; and if no such ... paper be published in such city or town," then by ... posting. [171 Ind. 254] This is the only notice required of ... 36, 7 Am. Rep. 214; City of ... LaFayette v. Fowler [1870], 34 Ind. 140; ... Muncey v. Joest [1881], 74 Ind. 409; ... City of Logansport v. Uhl [1885], 99 Ind ... 531, 50 Am. Rep. 109; Peters v. Griffee ... [1886], 108 Ind. 121, 8 N.E. 727; Taber v ... Ferguson [1887], ... ...
  • Ruckert v. Grand Avenue Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1901
    ... ... GRAND AVENUE RAILWAY COMPANY Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division June 11, 1901 ...           Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Selden P. Spencer, ...           ... Affirmed ...          Rudolph ... Laughlin for appellant ... (6) Appellant ... is estopped from asserting equitable remedy by injunction, ... and must be remitted to his action by law. City of Logansport ... v. Uhl, 99 Ind. 531 ...          GANTT, ... J. Sherwood, P. J., and Burgess, J., concur ...           ... OPINION ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT