Fox v. Cincinnati
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
By the laws of Ohio the board of public works was authorized to sell or lease, for hydraulic purposes, the surplus water in the canals of the State not required for the purposes of navigation.- This included water passing round the locks from one level to another; but it was expressly provided that no power should be leased or sold, except such as should accrue from surplus water, “ after supplying the full quantity necessary for the purposes of navigation.” The laws also required that every lease of grant of power should contain a reservation of the right to resume the privilege, in whole or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Trustees of the Wabash & Erie Canal v. BrettIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by23 opinions
- Reichelderfer v. QuinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Equitable Life Insurance v. HazlewoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
- Colorado Society of Community & Institutional Psychologists, Inc. v. LammSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- Walsh v. Columbus, Hocking Valley & Athens RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.