Pennoyer v. City of Saginaw
| Decision Date | 13 October 1860 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hiram S. Pennoyer v. The City of Saginaw |
Heard October 6, 1860
Error to Saginaw circuit. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
Sutherland & Miller, for plaintiff in error.
Moore & Gaylord, for defendants in error.
Manning J.:
This is an action against the city of Saginaw, for maintaining, keeping up, and continuing in said city, since the first day of January, 1859, certain ditches, whereby the surplus surface water of the city is thrown upon the land of the plaintiff, to his great injury. On the trial, after introducing evidence to show his title to the land on 1st January, 1859, and that he was in possession thereof, the existence of the ditches, and the injury done to the land, he offered in evidence the record of the proceedings of the common council of the city, in 1858, to prove the making of contracts and employment of men by the city to dig the ditch by which the water was turned on his land. It was objected to, and ruled out by the court, but for what reason does not appear from the bill of exceptions. If on the ground that it was of proceedings anterior to the plaintiff's title, and his possession of the land--as stated in the brief submitted by defendant's counsel--it is only necessary to say that the city, by creating the nuisance, which the evidence offered tended to prove, is prima facie liable for its continuance.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pohutski v. City of Allen Park
...this case. 11. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. 12. Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. 13. 383 Mich. 630, 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). 14. See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349, 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice ......
-
Hadfield v. Oakland County Drain Com'r
...city, by creating the nuisance, which the evidence offered tended to prove, is prima facie liable for its continuance." Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534, 535 (1860). The defendant's actions in Pennoyer may be characterized as either trespass or In Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872), ......
-
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
...the particular activity constituted a nuisance or trespass. See, e.g., Sheldon v. Village of Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860). Taken to its logical conclusion, however, such a doctrine would hold that a governmental entity is always outside of the scop......
-
Rosario v. City of Lansing
...city, by creating the nuisance, which the evidence offered tended to prove, is prima facie liable for its continuance." Pennoyer v. City of Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860). The exception remains viable in today's jurisprudence. "No state agency is free to maintain a nuisance and hence it cannot......