Lead Opinion
The argument on the part of the respondent took a range which we do not deem it necessary to follow on this appeal. The question as to what may be the obligations or equities between the defendant company and the United States, growing out of the transfer of the works of the company to the United States, is not properly before us, and will not be discussed. This action is to recover the damages which the plaintiff has sustained in consequence of the flowage of his land by the defendant for six years before the commencement of the suit. It appears that, after the transfer of the improvement to the United States, the plaintiff instituted proceedings under ch. 119 of the laws of 1872, ch. 291 of the laws of 1874, and the act of congress (ch. 166) approved March 3, 1875, to obtain compensation for damages occasioned by the flowage of his lands. In his petition in that proceeding, he claims compensation for all the damages which he has sustained by reason of the flowage, as well before the United
"With this expression of our views for the guidance of the circuit court, the appeal must be dismissed.
By the Oowrt.— Appeal dismissed.
Rehearing
On a motion for a rehearing, the defendant’s counsel contended that the requirement to give security, other than upon the property of the company, in a case like this, was oppressive, the stockholders of the company being nonresidents and not personally liable beyond the value of their respective stock; that the property of the company was the only fund to
Tbe motion for a rehearing was denied.