Dixon v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Circuit Courts

Dixon v. City of Cincinnati

11 Ohio C.C. 629

DecidedJanuary 15, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ohio C.C. 629 (Dixon v. City of Cincinnati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts 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, 11 Ohio C.C. 629 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Swing, J.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their 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 was 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 the grotind to support the fill for the street, which it was -necessary to have in order to make the improvement. The same result could have been obtained by making solid masonry [632]*632walls, brt the expense would have been much greater to the property owners, and the improvement would not have been so satisfactory.

JT. C. Ampt, for plaintiffs. Wm. H. Whittaker, for city.

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 their 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 was 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 the grotind to support the fill for the street, which it was -necessary to have in order to make the improvement. The same result could have been obtained by making solid masonry [632]*632walls, brt the expense would have been much greater to the property owners, and the improvement would not have been so satisfactory.

JT. C. Ampt, for plaintiffs. Wm. H. Whittaker, for city.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ohio C.C. 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohiocirct-1894.