Zimmerman v. Canfield
Ohio Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court of Fulton county. These cases are considered together. The first was one to enjoin the construction of a proposed ditch about eight miles in length, seventeen rods of which crossed the plaintiff’s lands seven miles below the initial point and about one mile above the outlet.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Fulton county. These cases are considered together. The first was one to enjoin the construction of a proposed ditch about eight miles in length, seventeen rods of which crossed the plaintiff’s lands seven miles below the initial point and about one mile above the outlet. The object of the second was to enjoin all proceedings upon a petition to locate and construct a ditch across the plaintiff’s land along the route of the proposed ditch involved in the first case. In the first case the proceedings were regular except that the plaintiff (who was a resident of…
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
1. It is maintained by the plaintiff (1) that the statutes in force in 1881, under which the commissioners were proceeding, were unconstitutional and void, and (2) that the order of the district court directing proceedings before the commissioners was unauthorized.
One of the grounds relied upon to support the first proposition is that these statutes were in contravention of section 19 of the bill of rights of the constitution of Ohio, which ordains that: “ Where private property shall be taken for public use, a compensation therefor shall first be made in money, ox first secured by a deposit…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Herrick v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Hill v. the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Kramer v. Cleveland & Pittsburgh RailroadOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Yost's ReportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Long v. FullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.