Case Name: OSBORN v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1915-12-21
Citations: 189 Mich. 96
Docket Number: Docket No. 82
Parties: OSBORN v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 189
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
OSBORN v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR.
Waters — Municipal Corporations — Riparian Rights — Diverting Stream: — Demurrer—Appeal and Error.
Upon a bill in chancery to restrain a municipal corporation from diverting water by artesian wells from tbe neighborhood of complainant’s wells, an order overruling defendant’s demurrer is affirmed in order that proofs may be taken to assist the court in determining the question, because of its great importance in this State.
Appeal from Washtenaw; Kinne, J.
Submitted October 14, 1915.
(Docket No. 82.)
Decided December 21, 1915.
Bill by Frederick Osborn and another against the city of Ann Arbor and others for an injunction. From a decree overruling defendants’ demurrer, complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Andrew J. Sawyer (John W. Dwyer and Arthur Brown, of counsel), for complainants.
Frank B. De Vine (A. F. Freeman, of counsel), for defendants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The bill of complaint in this cause is filed to restrain the defendant city from taking for public use water from property adjoining the property of the complainants. Complainants claim that in doing this it takes water from the complainants' property and the region thereabout, and thus destroys the value of the land, and deprives the owner of the land of the water for domestic and agricultural purposes, without condemnation proceedings, or without compensating the owner for his loss. An appeal is taken to this court from an order overruling the demurrer filed by the defendant. At the hearing of the case before us it was announced by the court that because of the importance of the questions involved we hesitated to decide the question.upon the allegations in the bill of complaint, and therefore would sustain the order overruling the demurrer, so that an answer might be filed and proofs taken. The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed.