Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Kaukauna Water-Power Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1888 |
| Citation | 70 Wis. 635,36 N.W. 828 |
| Parties | GREEN BAY & M. CANAL CO. v. KAUKAUNA WATER-POWER CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Motion for rehearing. For former report of this case, see 35 N. W. Rep. 529.
Each party has moved for a rehearing of the cause. We do not care to discuss the case further on the defendant's motion, as we find nothing in the argument in support of it which leads us to distrust the accuracy of the judgment hereinbefore announced.
The plaintiff's motion is not for the purpose of changing the judgment, but to procure a modification of what is said in the opinion respecting the relative rights of the plaintiff and the United States in the improvements which create the water-power in controversy. What was there said on that subject seemed to be called for by the prayer for a mandatory injunction contained in the complaint. It was certainly pertinent to that branch of the case, and hence not obiter dictum. Yet it was not absolutely essential to a determination of the right to such injunction. The refusal of such injunction may as well be rested in the discretionary power of the court in that behalf. Inasmuch as the head gates of the defendants' canal stop the water as effectually as would an embankment of earth, and the plaintiff is not injured by leaving the gates as they are, a refusal of the injunction prayed is a very proper exercise of the discretion of the court. Because the United States is not a party to this litigation, and because the question of its rights in the works of the improvement, as affecting the plaintiff, has not been fully argued, we are constrained to so far *829modify the former opinion as to leave the question of the relative rights of the plaintiff and the United States in and to the dams and other works pertaining to the Fox river improvement open and undetermined. A rehearing is unnecessary.
Each motion is denied, with $25 costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wausau St. Ry. Co. v. Bancroft
...Riv. Imp. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis. 61;Olson v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203, 211;Green Bay & M. Co. v. Kaukauna W. P. Co., 70 Wis. 635, 35 N. W. 529, 36 N. W. 828;Koenig v. Watertown, 104 Wis. 409, 80 N. W. 728;Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Hewitt, 79 Wis. 334, 48 N. W. 373;West v. Fox River Paper Co., 82 Wis......
-
Taylor v. Dimmitt
...25, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 656; State v. City of Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Water Power Co., 70 Wis. 635, 35 N.W. 529, 36 N.W. 828; Richards v. Portland, 121 Ore. 340, 205 Pac. 326; Paris Mountain Water Co. v. City of Greenville. 110 Sup. Ct. 36, 96 S.E. 545; Andrews v. So......
-
Taylor v. Dimmitt
...25, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 656; State v. City of Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Water Power Co., 70 Wis. 635, 35 N.W. 529, 36 N.W. 828; Richards v. Portland, Ore. 340, 205 P. 326; Paris Mountain Water Co. v. City of Greenville. 110 S.Ct. 36, 96 S.E. 545; Andrews v. South Haven......
-
Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado Springs
...25 F. 202; State v. City of Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Kaukauna Water-Power Co., 70 Wis. 635, 35 N.W. 529, 36 N.W. 828; Bell v. City of Platteville, 71 Wis. 139, 36 831; French v. Inhabitants of Quincy, 3 Allen, 9; Worden v. City of New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23; Camde......