Canal Company v. Clark was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between the Canal Company and Clark over the ownership of a canal. The Canal Company had been granted a charter by the state of Ohio to construct a canal, and Clark had purchased a portion of the land on which the canal was to be built. The Canal Company argued that the charter granted them the right to build the canal on the land, regardless of who owned it. Clark argued that the charter did not give the Canal Company the right to build on his land without his permission. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Canal Company, finding that the charter granted them the right to build the canal on the land, regardless of who owned it. The Court held that the charter was a contract between the Canal Company and the state of Ohio, and that the Canal Company had the right to build the canal on the land, regardless of who owned it. The Court also held that the Canal Company was not required to pay Clark for the use of his land, as the charter did not require it. The Court also noted that the Canal Company had acted in good faith in constructing the canal, and that Clark had not been harmed by the construction.

In Canal Company v. Clark, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a canal company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide sufficient water to operate a mill owned by Clark. The majority opinion found that the canal company could not be held liable because it had no contractual obligation to supply water and thus did not owe any duty of care towards Clark. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that even if there was no contract between them, the canal company still owed an implied duty of care due to their control over such an essential resource as water needed for operating mills like Clarks'. He argued that since they were aware of how important access to this resource was and yet failed in providing adequate amounts when requested, they should have been held accountable for their negligent actions which ultimately led to damages suffered by Clark's mill.