Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Mason

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Mason

4 D.C. 123

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 4 D.C. 123 (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Mason, 4 D.C. 123 (circtddc 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court,

(Thruston, J., absent,)

upon hearing the testimony of witnesses, and the argument of counsel, set aside the inquisition, because they were of opinion that the company had unreasonably required the condemnation of the whole lot, when they might have left valuable property to Mr. Mason, which seems to [124]*124be' of no use to the company, and because the jury had not ascertained, with sufficient certainty, the bounds of the land condemned.

Mr. C. Cox and Mr. Swann, for the plaintiff. Mr. Key, for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court,

(Thruston, J., absent,)

upon hearing the testimony of witnesses, and the argument of counsel, set aside the inquisition, because they were of opinion that the company had unreasonably required the condemnation of the whole lot, when they might have left valuable property to Mr. Mason, which seems to [124]*124be' of no use to the company, and because the jury had not ascertained, with sufficient certainty, the bounds of the land condemned.

Mr. C. Cox and Mr. Swann, for the plaintiff. Mr. Key, for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 D.C. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-ohio-canal-co-v-mason-circtddc-1830.