Case Name: Julia A. Browne v. Amos J. Winslow
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1893-04-28
Citations: 95 Mich. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julia A. Browne v. Amos J. Winslow.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Julia A. Browne v. Amos J. Winslow.
Waters and water-courses — Diversion—Appeal—Weight of evidence.
The conclusion of the circuit judge that the stream which complainant charges defendant with diverting did not originally entér upon or touch complainant’s land, and thát she therefore has no rights in the water, is affirmed.
Appeal from Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.)
Argued February 9 and 10, 1893.
Decided April 28, 1893.
Bill to restrain the diversion of the waters of a certain stream.
Decree dismissing bill affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Boudeman é Adams, for complainant.
Howard & Boos, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hooker, O. J.
Complainant and defendant own adjoining premises. This controversy arises over a small stream which complainant claims was wrongfully diverted from her premises. Defendant makes a similar complaint against the complainant, each asking that the other be restrained.
The questions in this case are:. Did the stream originally flow upon complainant's land? If not, then has she obtained a right by adverse possession? Both are questions of fact, and both appear to have been carefully considered by tbe trial court. The judge saw the witnesses, and inspected the premises, and reached the conclusion that complainant failed to establish her claim. In an opinion, upon which the decree was based, he explicitly states that the stream did not originally at any point enter upon or touch the complainant's land, and that she, therefore, had no rights in the water. A careful review of the case leads us to the same conclusion. The proof upon the subject of adverse possession seems equally clear.
As only questions of fact are involved,' it is unnecessary to discuss the case further.
The decree of the circuit court, dismissing the bill, will be affirmed, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.