Summy v. Mulford
This text of 5 Blackf. 113 (Summy v. Mulford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IT was held in this case, that after a party had erected a mill-dam, he could not, under the statute of 1831, have a writ of ad quod damnum. Smith v. Olmstead, ante, p. 37
The law is now otherwise. The statute of 1842 enacts, “ that it shall be lawful for any person who has already erected a dam, to make application for a writ of ad quod damnum, in like manner as if he were desirous of erecting a dam, but had not already done it.” Acts of 1842, p. 158.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Blackf. 113, 1839 Ind. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summy-v-mulford-ind-1839.