Dixon v. City of Cincinnati

Hamilton Circuit Court

Dixon v. City of Cincinnati

5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 301

DecidedFebruary 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 301 (Dixon v. City of Cincinnati) 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

Dixon v. City of Cincinnati, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 301 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Swing, J.

The plaintiffs are not entitled -to the relief prayed for in this petition.

The case does not come within the principles decided in the Case of Batsche v. The City (33 W. L. B., 82). There is no widening of the street- here as in that case. What was done there for the purpose of improving the street, and the easement obtained in the adjoining premises outside the limits of the street, was not for the purpose of widening the street, but for the purpose of getting an easement in ground to support the fill for the street, which it was necessary to have in order to make the improvements. The same result could have been obtained by making solid masonry walls, but the expense would have been much greater to the property owners, and the improvements would not have been so satisfactory.

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

Swing, J.

The plaintiffs are not entitled -to the relief prayed for in this petition.

The case does not come within the principles decided in the Case of Batsche v. The City (33 W. L. B., 82). There is no widening of the street- here as in that case. What was done there for the purpose of improving the street, and the easement obtained in the adjoining premises outside the limits of the street, was not for the purpose of widening the street, but for the purpose of getting an easement in ground to support the fill for the street, which it was necessary to have in order to make the improvements. The same result could have been obtained by making solid masonry walls, but the expense would have been much greater to the property owners, and the improvements would not have been so satisfactory.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohcircthamilton-1896.