Arnold v. Cov. & Cin. Bridge Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 54 — AD QUOD DAMNUM cited 7 Dana, 29 ; 1 J. J. M., 586; Const, of Ey., art. 13, sec. 14; 7 B. M., 167, 534; 7 Dana, 81; 13 B. M.,1; 5 Dana, 25. cited 6 Mon., 498 ; 1 Dana, 232; 4 Met., 207 ; 13 B. M.., 31; D. S. Stat. at Large, pp. 532, 711; Am. L. Reg., Aug., 1864, p. 591 ; Same, April, 1864.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion of the court —
JUDGE WILLIAMS dissenting:
The charter of the Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company provides that it “ shall have power and authority to *373proceed and condemn any and all real property that may be necessary for the location and erection or convenience of its bridge, toll-house, abutments, piers, anchor pits, or approaches to said bridge, or to be in any way for the convenience of the same,” by a prescribed proceeding under a writ of ad quod damnum, wherein a jury, on its own view and on extraneous testimony, “if necessary,” shall assess “the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Varner v. MartinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- City of New London v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Connecticut College v. CalvertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Covington Short-Route Transfer Railway Co. v. PielCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- David v. Louisville & Interurban RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.