Legal Opinion

Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Hare

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided October 21, 1922No. 2003PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs, O. S. Hare, Rush Elkins, Mary E. Elkins, and Nannie H. Wainwright, recovered judgment for $7,500 against the defendant, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, for damage to their land alleged to have been caused by the obstruction of the Guyandotte river.

Gilbert, a town of about 500 inhabitants, is situated mainly on the east side of the river. On the west side the plaintiffs in 1920 had laid off into lots and streets about 20 acres of land, 5.51' acres of which was bottom land on the river. They expected to develop these lots *946into a town called Black Pine,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Pennsylvania Co. v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  3. Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  4. McHenry v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Oates v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. C. M. Spring Drug Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
  2. C. M. Spring Drug Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API