Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Woolley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 107 — EQUITY— APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Appellee has shown no just demands against appellant. 2. No authority sustains the remarkable proposition assumed by appellant, that the Kentucky and Ohio corporations are a partnership.
Read the full summary
Case 107 — EQUITY— APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Appellee has shown no just demands against appellant. 2. No authority sustains the remarkable proposition assumed by appellant, that the Kentucky and Ohio corporations are a partnership. (Ind., Cin. & Lafayette R. R. Co. v. Jones, 29 Ind., 466; 4 Bissell, 78; 22 N. Y., 278; I Black, 286; 28 Conn., 299; 10 Howard, 392; I Wallace, 39; 31 Ohio, 317; 6 Otto, 499; Martin, &c., v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., 7 Bush, 116; 12 Wall., 65; 13 lb., 270.) 1. There is no .proof to show the authority of Hallam to employ the appellee, except that…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE I-IARGIS
delivered ti-ie opinion'of the court.
In the case before us it appears that the states of Kentucky and Ohio each created a corporation, which was given the same name. The object of each was to construct a bridge across the Ohio river, between Newport and Cincinnati. The powers conferred by each state upon its creation ■are complete; so full, that if either state had not given its corporation any powers, the other would remain invested with full power to construct the bridge to the extent of the territorial jurisdiction of 'the state which gave it life, but no farther.
The…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Barnes v. LiebigSupreme Court of Florida · 1941
- Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Jefferson County Burial Soc. v. CottonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Inter-Southern Life Insurance v. MillikenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Langdon-Creasy Co. v. Trustees of Owenton Common School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.