Baker v. Norwood (Vil.)

22 Ohio C.C. 173
CourtOhio Circuit Courts
DecidedJanuary 15, 1901
StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. 173 (Baker v. Norwood (Vil.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Norwood (Vil.), 22 Ohio C.C. 173 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1901).

Opinion

GiRREn, J.

The plaintiff alleges in bis petition that the village of Nor-wood has, without his permission, and with condemning for public use, improved his certain lot of land for street purposes, and assessed the costs thereof upon his lots adjacent thereto, the prayer being for an injunction.

The answer admits the making of the improvements and levying the assessments, but avers that plaintiff was served with notice pursuant to the provisions of sec. 2304, Rev. Stat., and received the benefits.

The proof is that plaintiff was not served with any notice, nor did he. in any manner consent to such improvements.

The village, in making the improvements upon the land of plaintiff and thus attempting to appropriate the same for street purposes, was a trespasser.

The statute did not confer upon the village the right to improve the private property of the plaintiff, and much less to assess upon his individual property the cost of an improvement he never desired nor solicited. Harbeck v. Toledo, 11 O. S. 219.

Perpetual injunction allowed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Ohio C.C. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-norwood-vil-ohiocirct-1901.