Akins v. County Commissioners

Ohio Court of Appeals

Akins v. County Commissioners

166 N.E. 426, 31 Ohio App. 129, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 248, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 572

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1929

DocketNo 1526

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 N.E. 426 (Akins v. County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akins v. County Commissioners, 166 N.E. 426, 31 Ohio App. 129, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 248, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*249 PARDEE, J.

Giving to plaintiff’s petition an interpretation most favorable to him, it may be said that he claims that a vacant and unimproved lot, which he purchased after a grade had been properly established in front thereof, has been damaged by change of such grade, which change was made by the county commissioners in conformity to law, for the purpose of providing an approach to a county bridge over the Ohio canal, but which change was not made by the city in conformity to the law in reference to the change of grade of city streets, and that by reason of the acts of said commissioners, ingress and egress to his said lot has been rendered difficult and inconvenient, and as a consequence of said improvement, travel which otherwise would pass on the side of said street next to said lot, has been diverted so as to pass on the side opposite to said lot, and on the grade of said approach.

We have re-examined a great many of the reported Ohio cases upon this subject— those cited and others — and we are unanimously of the opinion that in this state a property owner cannot recover damages from a political subdivision of the state for changing, in conformity to law, the established grade of a street in front of privately owned property, unless said property has been improved with reference to said established grade and the grade has been changed to the damage of said improved property.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*249 PARDEE, J.

Giving to plaintiff’s petition an interpretation most favorable to him, it may be said that he claims that a vacant and unimproved lot, which he purchased after a grade had been properly established in front thereof, has been damaged by change of such grade, which change was made by the county commissioners in conformity to law, for the purpose of providing an approach to a county bridge over the Ohio canal, but which change was not made by the city in conformity to the law in reference to the change of grade of city streets, and that by reason of the acts of said commissioners, ingress and egress to his said lot has been rendered difficult and inconvenient, and as a consequence of said improvement, travel which otherwise would pass on the side of said street next to said lot, has been diverted so as to pass on the side opposite to said lot, and on the grade of said approach.

We have re-examined a great many of the reported Ohio cases upon this subject— those cited and others — and we are unanimously of the opinion that in this state a property owner cannot recover damages from a political subdivision of the state for changing, in conformity to law, the established grade of a street in front of privately owned property, unless said property has been improved with reference to said established grade and the grade has been changed to the damage of said improved property.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.E. 426, 31 Ohio App. 129, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 248, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akins-v-county-commissioners-ohioctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack