Fox v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Error reserved in the District Court of Hamilton county. The original action was brought by Eox, to recover from the city, damages for the destruction of a certain waterpower, which he claimed to own at lock No. 8 of the Miami and Erie Canal in said city. His title to this water power is. derived from a sale or lease of the same by the state to-Clark 'Williams, dated March 26, 1836, of which he is the assignee.
Read the full summary
Error reserved in the District Court of Hamilton county. The original action was brought by Eox, to recover from the city, damages for the destruction of a certain waterpower, which he claimed to own at lock No. 8 of the Miami and Erie Canal in said city. His title to this water power is. derived from a sale or lease of the same by the state to-Clark 'Williams, dated March 26, 1836, of which he is the assignee. This instrument is denominated a lease, and is,, in its terms, in accordance with the statute then in force, authorizing a sale of surplus water on the canals of the-state, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Chief Judge.
It is conceded that the city, by the construction of the avenue and sewer, has rendered it permanently impracticable to again have or use surplus-water power covered by the Clark 'Williams’ lease, at the-point owned by Eos.
The only question we shall consider is: Has the city, by its improvement, rendered itself liable in, damages to the-plaintiff? The act under which it accepted the grant of that part of the canal, is as follows (60 Ohio L. 44):
“AN ACT to authorize the city of Cincinnati to enter upon and occupy a part of the Miami and Erie canal as a public highway and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trustees of the Wabash & Erie Canal v. BrettIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Fishback v. WoodruffIndiana Supreme Court · 1875