Galloway v. Wilder
| Decision Date | 29 October 1872 |
| Citation | 26 Mich. 97 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William Galloway v. Horace Wilder |
Heard October 26, 1872
Case made from Kent circuit.
Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and judgment entered in this court for the plaintiff, for the damages found by the court below, being ten dollars, together with his costs of both courts.
Taggart & Allen, for plaintiff.
Lowing Cross & Angel, for defendant.
Galloway sued Wilder before a justice of the peace, for trespass upon land, and under the statute, the cause was certified to the circuit court, where the defendant recovered judgment.
The cause comes into this court upon a case made, pursuant to section 3421, Comp. L., and it purports to contain the facts and conclusions of law found by the court, and not the evidence given. Under the exceptions stated, the only question is as to the judgment which the facts require.
The facts, as found, cannot be very well explained without the aid of a diagram.
The point in the case arises upon the right of the defendant, under a reservation in his deed, to go upon the land of the plaintiff, which the latter held subject to the reservation, and there make a ditch, or mill-race. When the deed containing the reservation was given, a race ran from certain works of the defendant northerly, and into Buck creek, about thirty rods from the place where the creek empties into Grand river. The defendant claims the right, under the reservation in his deed, to make a new ditch or race, crossing the old one at a point near its junction with the creek, and then on in a nearly straight line to the Grand river; and the assertion of this claim by going on to the plaintiff's land, and ploughing it up just north of the old race and near its junction with the creek, is the trespass complained of.
The reservation in the deed is as follows: "The right of way for a tail-race across said northwest fractional quarter of section numbered eighteen, with the right of ingress, egress and regress, and the privilege of making excavations or embankments, and moving such earth or stone as may be necessary to make a tail-race as deep or wide as the improvement of the water-power belonging to the party of the first part, for his furnace or machine shop or mill, may require."
Now this language does not fix the line of the contemplated race. Neither does it save the right to have more than one, or authorize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderich v. Kansas City, Ozark & Southern Railway Company
...or his assigns were not justified in entering upon an entirely different part of plaintiff's premises without his consent. [Galloway v. Wilder, 26 Mich. 97; Manning v. Railroad, 33 A. 802; Karmuller Krotz, 18 Iowa 352; 14 Cyc. 1205.] The plaintiff owned one hundred and sixty acres of land, ......
-
Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Patten Paper Co.
...This question was not argued and is not decided. See, however, Gould on Waters (3d Ed.) § 318a; Groat v. Moak, 94 N. Y. 115;Galloway v. Wilder, 26 Mich. 97. All the other questions relative to the construction of the Woodward grant presented in this case were, we think, before this court in......
-
Henderich v. Kansas City, O. & S. Ry. Co.
...or his assigns, was not justified in entering upon an entirely different part of plaintiff's premises without his consent. Galloway v. Wilder, 26 Mich. 97; Manning v. Railroad, 54 N. J. Eq. 46, 33 Atl. 802; Karmuller v. Krotz, 18 Iowa, 352; 14 Cyc. The plaintiff owned 160 acres of land; and......
-
Reidinger v. Cleveland Iron Mining Co.
...v. Angier, 2 Allen 129; Stetson v. Curtis, 119 Mass. 266; Crocker v. Crocker, 5 Hun 587. See Choate v. Burnham, 7 Pick. 274; Galloway v. Wilder, 26 Mich. 97; Brown v. Thissell, 6 Cush. 254; Simonds Wellington, 10 Cush. 313; Purkiss v. Benson, 28 Mich. 538; Smith v. Galloway, 27 E. C. L., 28......