United States v. Rider
District Court, S.D. Ohio
At Law. Information against Frank M. Rider, John F. Burgess, and others, county commissioners of Muskingum county; Ohio, for failing to provide a bridge with a “ draw ” for the passage of boats. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants move for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Sage, District Judge.
The defendants are prosecuted under an information founded upon the fourth and fifth sections of the river and harbor act, approved September 19, 1890. The charges are, in short, that on the 16th of October, 1891, the defendants were the county commissioners of Muskingum county, Ohio, and as such empowered by the law of Ohio to construct, alter, and keep in repair all necessary bridges over streams and public canals on all state and county roads, and then and there had control of the bridge across the Muskingum river between Tay-lorville and Duncan’s Falls; and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grant v. RaymondSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Wiggins v. BurkhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Miller v. TaylorNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- State ex rel. Standaed Oil Co. v. BlaisdellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- United States v. City of MolineDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1897
- E. A. Chatfield Co. v. City of New HavenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1901
- Portland v. MontgomeryOregon Supreme Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.