City of Dayton v. Rhotehamel

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Dayton v. Rhotehamel

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 1914

DocketNo. 14041

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175 (City of Dayton v. Rhotehamel) 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

City of Dayton v. Rhotehamel, 90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175 (Ohio 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

It is not the duty of a municipality to keep streets and alleys open, in repair and free from nuisance until it opens the same to public travel or in some other manner invites the public to use the same for street and alley purposes, notwithstanding stjch streets and alleys have been [176]*176dedicated by a private owner to such'public purpose and such dedication has been accepted by the council of a municipality.

The question whether streets and alleys dedicated to public use and accepted by the public have been improved or opened up to public travel, or the public invited in any other way to make use of the same for such purpose, is one for the jury, and where there is any evidence tending to prove' such facts it is error for the trial court to direct a verdict.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed and cause remanded.

Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Newman, JJ., concur. Nichols, C. J., and Siiauck, J., dissent.

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

By the Court.

It is not the duty of a municipality to keep streets and alleys open, in repair and free from nuisance until it opens the same to public travel or in some other manner invites the public to use the same for street and alley purposes, notwithstanding stjch streets and alleys have been [176]*176dedicated by a private owner to such'public purpose and such dedication has been accepted by the council of a municipality.

The question whether streets and alleys dedicated to public use and accepted by the public have been improved or opened up to public travel, or the public invited in any other way to make use of the same for such purpose, is one for the jury, and where there is any evidence tending to prove' such facts it is error for the trial court to direct a verdict.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed and cause remanded.

Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Newman, JJ., concur. Nichols, C. J., and Siiauck, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dayton-v-rhotehamel-ohio-1914.