Raccoon River Navigation Co. v. Eagle
This text of 29 Ohio St. 238 (Raccoon River Navigation Co. v. Eagle) 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.
Opinion
Does the record- show that the court of -common pleas erred in rejecting the testimony offered?
We do not know of any law of the State of Ohio, by which “ Big Raccoon river, from its mouth at the Ohio river in Gallia county, Ohio, to the town of Zaleski, in Vinton county, Ohio ” has been declared navigable. Our attention has been called to an act of 1834 (32 Ohio L. 184), which declares, “ That so much of Big Raccoon creek as lies in the county of Gallia is hereby declared a public high-way;” but we can not assume that “Big Raccoon creek’* [240]*240is “ Big Raccoon river,” or that the stream, from its mouth at the Ohio river to the town of Zaleski in Vinton county, is only that part of the stream which is described in the act of 1834 as lying in Gallia county. And, unless both these propositions be true, it is clear that the attempted incorporation of the plaintiff was without authority of law. If they be true, the record should at least show that the plaintiff' offered testimony tending to prove them, otherwise it does not show that the party wTas prejudiced.
It is suggested that the rejected testimony tended to-prove, at least, a corporation de facto; and that the defendant was estopped, by subscribing to its stock, from denying-its legal existence. The case is not one wherein the doctrine of estoppel can be applied.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 Ohio St. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raccoon-river-navigation-co-v-eagle-ohio-1876.