Canal Company v. Hill was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the Canal Company and Hill, a former employee of the company. Hill had been employed by the Canal Company to construct a canal, but he had failed to complete the project. The Canal Company sued Hill for breach of contract, seeking damages for the cost of completing the project. The Supreme Court held that the Canal Company was entitled to recover damages from Hill. The Court reasoned that Hill had breached his contract with the Canal Company by failing to complete the project, and that the Canal Company was entitled to recover the cost of completing the project from Hill. The Court also held that the Canal Company was entitled to recover damages for any losses it had suffered as a result of Hill's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Canal Company was entitled to recover damages from Hill for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Hill had failed to complete the project, and that the Canal Company was entitled to recover the cost of completing the project, as well as any losses it had suffered as a result of Hill's breach of contract.

In the case of Canal Company v. Hill, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a canal company had an obligation to pay damages for flooding caused by its operations. The majority opinion held that since the company had been granted exclusive rights over navigation on the river, it could not be liable for any damage resulting from its activities. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that this decision would lead to unjust results and deprive individuals of their right to seek compensation when they were wrongfully injured by another's actions. He further noted that while granting exclusive rights may have been necessary at one time due to limited resources and technology available, such exclusivity should no longer be allowed as modern engineering has made it possible for multiple parties to use waterways without interfering with each other’s interests or causing harm. As such he concluded that companies should still be held accountable if their activities cause injury or damage regardless of any prior grants of exclusivity they may have received from government authorities