Cincinnati Gas, Coke, Coal & Min. Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry.

Hamilton Circuit Court

Cincinnati Gas, Coke, Coal & Min. Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry.

23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 192, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 195

DecidedJuly 15, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 192 (Cincinnati Gas, Coke, Coal & Min. Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Gas, Coke, Coal & Min. Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry., 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 192, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 195 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

The court feels that there is no need of further consideration of this cause. We are unanimous that 'no injunction should be granted and that the petition should be dismissed. We are of the opinion, in the first place, that the question presented [194]*194here could and should be presented in the insolvency court. If that is not so, we think there is no exclusive' occupancy of Front street proposed, and that the trustees have full power to proceed as they are proceeding. As to carrying out the contract between the trustees and the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, we believe that the power of the trustees is ample; that in occupying Front street by the track of the Southern Railway, the trustees have ample power to move the Baltimore & Ohio track, and further, upon the evidence, the usage proposed is not an interference with the public use of the street as would destroy such use.

Swing and Jones, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, P. J.

The court feels that there is no need of further consideration of this cause. We are unanimous that 'no injunction should be granted and that the petition should be dismissed. We are of the opinion, in the first place, that the question presented [194]*194here could and should be presented in the insolvency court. If that is not so, we think there is no exclusive' occupancy of Front street proposed, and that the trustees have full power to proceed as they are proceeding. As to carrying out the contract between the trustees and the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company, we believe that the power of the trustees is ample; that in occupying Front street by the track of the Southern Railway, the trustees have ample power to move the Baltimore & Ohio track, and further, upon the evidence, the usage proposed is not an interference with the public use of the street as would destroy such use.

Swing and Jones, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 192, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-gas-coke-coal-min-co-v-baltimore-o-s-w-ry-ohcircthamilton-1911.