Euclid Ave. Christian Church v. Adams

159 N.E. 490, 26 Ohio App. 306, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 719, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 338

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 22, 1926
• Docket: 6774
• Status: Published

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

The Euclid Avenue Christian Church brought an action, in the Cuvahoga Common Pleas, against Minnie Adams, et al., to quiet title to a strip of land, or alley, 20 feet in width, running between the property of the Church and that of defendants.

It seems that in 1866, one Streator gave- a piece of property, on the corner of Euclid and 97th St., to the Euclid Ave. Congregational Church, and that there was an alley, 20 feet in width, running the full width of the property so donated..

At about the same time he sold lot No. 14, upon which the Christian Church is now located, to himself and others, as trustees of the Christian Church. Immediately back • of this lot was a narrow strip of 20 feet and immediately south of that was lot No. 13 which belongs to defendants. The trustees of the church took possession of the property and erected a church and subsequently-the present structure was built on this lot. ; ' ; ;

From 1866 to 1901 this strip of land was never placed on the tax duplicate. In 1901 the trustees of the Congregational Church, needing the alley for the purpose of erecting a larger structure, asked leave to have this alley vacated; and, upon hearing, same was vacated and re-dedicated a few feet further south. This shows how the trustees of the Congregational Church regarded the alley, that it had become part of the public streets of the city, and that Dr. Streator had lost all title and interest to the property.

Dr. Streator was asked to deed this 20 foot strip, back of the Congregational Church, to the trustees of the Christian Church, and he gave to said trustees a quit claim deed to this strip which separated lots 13 and 14, one from the other.

The City of Cleveland was made a party to the action to quiet title and it answered, claiming this strip as a public alley.

The Church can have only such title as it received from Dr. Streator in 1901; and if he did not have title to the property, the Church did not have anything better. The record shows that Dr. Streator intended to have an alley here. It was upon the plat and the plat was recorded.

The rights of Dr. Streator had ceased to exist prior to 1866 and he had no title or interest in this property other than he might have as a trustee of the Church which had a right to see that this alley was kept open for its use and the use of the property on the other side. He had no title in 1901, and, that being so, the Church could acquire no title other than his.

Dr. Streator gave no warranty deed to the strip in question, and, under these circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief it seeks and a decree may be entered for defendants.

(Levine, PJ. and Sullivan, J., concur.)