The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1885-03-19
Court Proceedings.
MONDAY. March 10Th.

Railroad, the company condemn
q ed a tract of land belonging
f the plaintiff for the purposes I
f a gravel pit. The original suppl
S of gravel was taken out, and til
/. high water filled the pit agail
n and this was removed. Agai
/, the water washed the gravel irol
a other parts of the Young iarl
i OH the excavation, and again til
company were removing it, whe
: the Youngs enjoined rhem, penc
i ing a suit for the recovery of tn
possession Of the: land and fo
}, damages sustained by reason q
; the wash from other parts of tn
farm occasioned by this excava
tior.
. The case turned upon the con
struction given 10 Sec. 1881 Il. s
providing for such appropriation
which is as follows:
"a company may enter npol
any land for the purpose of .ex
amining and surveying its rail
road line, and appropriate S,
: much thereof as may be deemed
necessary for its railroad, includ
ing necessary side tracks, depots
work shops, round houses an(
water stations, material for con
struction, except timber, a righ
of way over adjacent lines suf
ficient to enable it to construct
and repair lis road, and the righ'
to conduct water by aqneducts
and to make proper drains; bu'
ne appropriation of private pro
perty to the use of a company
shall be made until full compen
sation is made therefor is made
in money, or secured by deposit
of money. to the owner, irrespec-
tive of any benefit from any i'm
proyement proposed by the coin
pany, as prescribed by law"
The Court held that under this
seetio. a railroad company has
the right 10 condemn material
for construction, and that after
so much material has been re-
moved as under the peculiar cir
cumstances would be practical,
the company's rights On The pre-.
misses were at an end, and the fee
of such land reverted to the orr
ginal owners. Also, that the ap-
preparation is for construction
and not for repairs. However, if
there be some Of the original ma
terial left III the tract appropriat
ed. it may. be used for repairs
Under the charge the Jury
found for the plaintiff. and as
Sessed damages at 500. MIR.
Bargess, attorney for railroad.
will carry ,he case mp on excep
'iion 10 the charge of the Court.
Miller, Green 4 Joyce VS.. The
Monday Greek Iron Co., was re-
fierred to a Referee to ascertain
the sum in which each stockhold-
er of said defendant is liable.
Orr, Brown & Price VS. Finley,
was an action 10 subject property
in the hands of Finley in trust
for his children. The property
was in the name Of Jennie Fin
ley, Isom Finley's wife. during
her lifetime, and when she died
she willed it to her husband in
trust for their children. The
claim of plaintiffs was that the
deed conveying the property to
Jennie Finley originally was in
fraud Of creditors both present
and future, and therefore void.
The case was tried to the Court.
Judgment for the defendant.
The case Of Printable vs. Dew.
wherein Printable sues Dew for
injnry sustained on account of
wound inflicted upon him by a
shot .rpm i. revolver im the hands
Of the defendant while in row
in John Vanhorn's saloon, has
been settled.
The suit of Oliver Keith VS. The
Mot erwell Iron Co. was an ac-
tion for $27, claimed to be the
value of services rendered the
by Keith in hauling an
iron bridge from the company's
works TO some place in Benton
township. The work. was con
lracted ior at SIT. Mr. Robert
Motherweli telling Keith that he
thought the brilge would not
weigh more than 20: 200 ponn'.s.
Keith took the job, but before his
teams got out of town with the
bridge, he found That he had
1early 100000 pounds on. but
went ol. with il. The Court af
.er hearing the evidence ruled
he case from the Jury, saying
IS the contract was admitted and
,he plaintiff relie.l upon fraud 10
avoid it, he must show that the
representations of Motherwell
we're fraudulent, and that if they
we're fraudulent that he had not
.atified the fraud by his subse-
ynent conduct. In The first place
he representations of Noti.er-
veil concerning the weight of
he bridge were mere expressions
# opinion. and the plaintiff had
in equal opportunity 10 Judge
or himself. and il was his own
oily to rely entirely on the opin-
On of Moiherweli. And again.
ven though there was fraud on
he part of defendant, the plain
If had ratified the fraud, be-
800, u.;,o, ho d;-onvora6 the