Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Union Bank of Georgetown
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
■This w'as a motion, by Mr. J. Dunlop, to set aside an inquisition condemning land in Washington for the use of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, under the fifteenth section of its charter of January —, 1824, granted by Virginia, and confirmed by Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the United Slates.
1Opinion of the CourtCRanch, C. J.
1. The first objection to the inquisition is, that the name of the owner of the land does not appear in the inquisition; and although the inquisition refers to a warrant supposed to be returned therewith, yet that warrant is not annexed to the inquisition, nor referred to by any mark or other description by which it can be ascertained to which of the various warrants returned, it refers.
In answer to this objection, we think it is competent for the clerk to whom, by law, it was returned; or for the marshal who took and returned the inquisition and warrant, to prove, by parol, the fact of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fay v. DoudsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Aaronson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935
- State v. LarkinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869
- Willson v. McDonnellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1919
- Walla Walla County v. Ping, Washington Territory1872