Arnold v. Flattery

5 Ohio 271
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 Ohio 271 (Arnold v. Flattery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Flattery, 5 Ohio 271 (Ohio 1831).

Opinion

By the Court :

Where a road has been laid out in the manner jirescribed hy law, opened and used many years, it can not be allowed that it shall be suddenly closed by any individual through whose land it passes, on the hypothesis that the road used does not exactly follow the courses and distances of the recorded survey. Nor can it be required, after the lapse of many years, that-to sustain a public road every preliminary step directed to be. taken in establishing it must be proven by existing papers or records. In this case the court admitted the record and parol proof of the opening and using the road. The record was admitted to establish the fact that the road had been applied for and ordered; the proof of the opening and use, to show where it was actually opened and used. We think that in this there was no error. A new trial must be. refused.

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

Related

State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees
1995 Ohio 272 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Township Trustees
654 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
Keyes v. Tait
19 Iowa 123 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1865)
Beebe v. Scheidt
13 Ohio St. 406 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1862)
Anderson v. Commissioners of Hamilton County
12 Ohio St. (N.S.) 635 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Ohio 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-flattery-ohio-1831.