Lowe v. Warren Canal Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Lowe v. Warren Canal Co.

1 Wright 616, 1 Ohio Ch. 616

DecidedJune 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 616 (Lowe v. Warren Canal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lowe v. Warren Canal Co., 1 Wright 616, 1 Ohio Ch. 616 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

LANE, J.

The principle which will sustain this injunction, if it is sustained, is that the defendants are insolvent. That is denied m the answer. The refusal to arbitrate, which was the main ground for allowing the provisional injunction, is no longer operative in the cause, as arbitrators have been chosen since the bill was filed, who have made their award as to which the parties are litigating in *the Common Pleas. The necessity for an injunction seems [617 no longer to exist, and it is dissolved.

COLLETT, C. J. being a stockholder in the canal company, took no part in this ease.

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

LANE, J.

The principle which will sustain this injunction, if it is sustained, is that the defendants are insolvent. That is denied m the answer. The refusal to arbitrate, which was the main ground for allowing the provisional injunction, is no longer operative in the cause, as arbitrators have been chosen since the bill was filed, who have made their award as to which the parties are litigating in *the Common Pleas. The necessity for an injunction seems [617 no longer to exist, and it is dissolved.

COLLETT, C. J. being a stockholder in the canal company, took no part in this ease.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 616, 1 Ohio Ch. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-warren-canal-co-ohio-1834.