Hogg v. Zanesville Canal & Manufacturing Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
This case was reserved in the county of Muskingum. The declaration contains two counts: The first count sets forth that the Muskingum river is a navigable stream, and a common highway for all citizens.
Read the full summary
This case was reserved in the county of Muskingum. The declaration contains two counts: The first count sets forth that the Muskingum river is a navigable stream, and a common highway for all citizens. That at or near the town of Zanesville there was a certain dam across the river,, and a lock, through which lock it was the right of all citizens-to pass free of expense and without delay. -That by a certain act of the legislature of Ohio, of February 24, 1816, the defendants were required, within one year therefrom, to erect said dam and lock agreeably to an act in favor of John McIntyre and…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Hitchcock;
delivered the opinion of the court :
The two leading questions which require the consideration of the court are:
1. From the facts disclosed in this case have the plaintiffs a •right of action against the defendants ?
2. If they have such right of action, then can they in this form of action recover?
That the plaintiffs have sustained a loss is clear, and it would *378seem to be equally clear that this loss was sustained in consequence of the erection of the dam by the defendants. It is also-clear that the plaintiffs had the right of the free navigation of the Muskingum river; and if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Townsend v. President of the Susquehannah Turnpike RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by20 opinions
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Landis v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Miller v. GunckleOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Miller v. GunckleOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Hartmann v. DuffeyOhio Supreme Court · 2002
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.