Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Board of County Commissioners

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Board of County Commissioners

92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 513

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1915

DocketNo. 14441

StatusPublished

This text of 92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 513 (Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Board of County Commissioners) 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

Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 513 (Ohio 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed:

And the court coming now to render the judgment, that the court of appeals should have rendered, and it appearing that the abutments described in plaintiff’s petition, were constructed and maintained on the right of way of The Hamilton, Springfield & Carthage Turnpike Company,, at a point other than where the turnpike of said company was constructed over and upon an existing public highway of the state, and that the same was constructed more than twenty-one years before the [514]*514bringing of this action, and more than .twenty-one years before the county of Hamilton acquired this turnpike from its original owners, The Hamilton, Springfield & Carthage Turnpike Company, and that, therefore, this action is barred by the statutes of limitation.

It is, therefore, considered, and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the common pleas court of Hamilton county be and the same is hereby reversed, and the petition of the plaintiff dismissed.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Donahue, Newman, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Wanamaicer, J., dissents.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed:

And the court coming now to render the judgment, that the court of appeals should have rendered, and it appearing that the abutments described in plaintiff’s petition, were constructed and maintained on the right of way of The Hamilton, Springfield & Carthage Turnpike Company,, at a point other than where the turnpike of said company was constructed over and upon an existing public highway of the state, and that the same was constructed more than twenty-one years before the [514]*514bringing of this action, and more than .twenty-one years before the county of Hamilton acquired this turnpike from its original owners, The Hamilton, Springfield & Carthage Turnpike Company, and that, therefore, this action is barred by the statutes of limitation.

It is, therefore, considered, and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the common pleas court of Hamilton county be and the same is hereby reversed, and the petition of the plaintiff dismissed.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Donahue, Newman, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Wanamaicer, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Ohio St. (N.S.) 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-hamilton-dayton-ry-co-v-board-of-county-commissioners-ohio-1915.