Case Name: LOWE v. THE WARREN CANAL COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-06
Citations: 1 Wright 616
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOWE v. THE WARREN CANAL COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
LOWE v. THE WARREN CANAL COMPANY.
Warren canal — injunction—motion to dissolve — change of case after bill filed.
When the answer to a bill of injunction is filed, a motiou will be heard to dissolve .the injunction, and it will be dissolved, if the foundation on which it was allowed be denied, or has been since removed by the agreement of the parties, although litigation has risen under the agreement which is pending.
Bill in chancery to enjoin the defendants from cutting their canal through the complainant’s land, on the ground, that they were unnecessarily wasting and injuring the land, and had altogether refused to make choice of the appraisers to assess the damages .under their act of incorporation, and were wholly insolvent. A provisional injunction had been allowed.
Loss and Lunlevy, for the defendants,
filed the answer of the defendants, admitting their entry on the complainant’s land, and their progress in cutting the canal; and setting forth that since the bill was filed, arbitrators had been agreed upon by the parties, and an award had been made, from which an appeal had been taken to the Court of Common Pleas under the law, which is still pending. They offer to pay what is assessed, and deny their insolvency. On this it is moved to dissolve the injunction.
Thruston and Lowe, contra,
admitted the assessment of damages and. appeal.

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.