City of Norwood v. Sheen, Exr.

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Norwood v. Sheen, Exr.

183 N.E. 177, 43 Ohio App. 339, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 413

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 1932

DocketNo 3982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 N.E. 177 (City of Norwood v. Sheen, Exr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Norwood v. Sheen, Exr., 183 N.E. 177, 43 Ohio App. 339, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 413 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CUSHING, J.

The disposal of sewage is a governmental function. City of Mansfield v Balliett, 65 Oh St, 451.

There is no question but that the act of the City of Norwood in permitting the sewage to flow over and upon the plaintiff’s property constituted an appropriation of property to that extent. In the case of Schneider v Brown et Commissioners, etc, 33 Oh Ap, 269, it was held that the temporary use of property was an appropriation for that purpose. So in the case at bar, the using of the property for the disposal of sewage was an appropriation to that extent of the property.

The City also claims that the verdict is excessive and against the weight of the evidence. The record discloses that the testimony of the plaintiff fixed the rental value of the property between twelve and sixteen hundred dollars per year, and it was used by the City of Norwood for about four years. The City did not offer any testimony. So that the verdict of the jury cannot be questioned, as it was based on the only testimony introduced in the case. This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury, and while( the verdict seems excessive, the court is powerless to modify.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must, therefore, be affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and HAMILTON, J, concur.

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

CUSHING, J.

The disposal of sewage is a governmental function. City of Mansfield v Balliett, 65 Oh St, 451.

There is no question but that the act of the City of Norwood in permitting the sewage to flow over and upon the plaintiff’s property constituted an appropriation of property to that extent. In the case of Schneider v Brown et Commissioners, etc, 33 Oh Ap, 269, it was held that the temporary use of property was an appropriation for that purpose. So in the case at bar, the using of the property for the disposal of sewage was an appropriation to that extent of the property.

The City also claims that the verdict is excessive and against the weight of the evidence. The record discloses that the testimony of the plaintiff fixed the rental value of the property between twelve and sixteen hundred dollars per year, and it was used by the City of Norwood for about four years. The City did not offer any testimony. So that the verdict of the jury cannot be questioned, as it was based on the only testimony introduced in the case. This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury, and while( the verdict seems excessive, the court is powerless to modify.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must, therefore, be affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and HAMILTON, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.E. 177, 43 Ohio App. 339, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-norwood-v-sheen-exr-ohioctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack