Lovett v. Weidig

Ohio Court of Appeals

Lovett v. Weidig

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1882

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 1923

DocketNo. 4213

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 373 (Lovett v. Weidig) 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

Lovett v. Weidig, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1882 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, P. J.

Epitomized Opinion

Lovett brought suit to enjoin Weidig from closing up a' certain alley in Lakewood known as Kenilworth road. This alley ran from Arlington road to Sloane avenue and was used as a means of ingress and egress from the land now enclosed in the West-Haven allotment.- - The defendant claimed that the blue prints of the city of Lakewood showed that-the alley had not been dedicated' to public- use. The plaintiff, however, introduced evidence showing that this alley had- been used by- the public for at least ‘28 years.. Judge Hay of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga county rendered judgment for the defendant, and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff prosecuted error. The Court of Appeals^, in reversing the judgment of Judge Hay, held: ' • ' - • '

1.' As- the- evidence conclusively shows, that the alley .in question'had been dedicated,b'y'‘public-user for many years, the judgment of the lower cqurf is manifestly against the. weight of evidence 'and.,contrary to layr.

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

VICKERY, P. J.

Epitomized Opinion

Lovett brought suit to enjoin Weidig from closing up a' certain alley in Lakewood known as Kenilworth road. This alley ran from Arlington road to Sloane avenue and was used as a means of ingress and egress from the land now enclosed in the West-Haven allotment.- - The defendant claimed that the blue prints of the city of Lakewood showed that-the alley had not been dedicated' to public- use. The plaintiff, however, introduced evidence showing that this alley had- been used by- the public for at least ‘28 years.. Judge Hay of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga county rendered judgment for the defendant, and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff prosecuted error. The Court of Appeals^, in reversing the judgment of Judge Hay, held: ' • ' - • '

1.' As- the- evidence conclusively shows, that the alley .in question'had been dedicated,b'y'‘public-user for many years, the judgment of the lower cqurf is manifestly against the. weight of evidence 'and.,contrary to layr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 373, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovett-v-weidig-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack