Lunkenheimer Co. v. Cincinnati

Hamilton Circuit Court

Lunkenheimer Co. v. Cincinnati

13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 617, 3 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 143, 1902 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 173

DecidedJuly 1, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 617 (Lunkenheimer Co. v. 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

Lunkenheimer Co. v. Cincinnati, 13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 617, 3 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 143, 1902 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 173 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, J.

The' strip of ground in controversy was designated “ Public Ground ” on the plat of Jesse Hunt, the original proprietor, made in 1807; but the city of Cincinnati never accepted the dedication, if it be [618]*618such, either by ordinance or other act. On the contrary, it levied and collected assessments for the improvement of the adjacent alleys upon the plaintiffs and their grantors as the owners of the land in dispute.

The testimony shows that the plaintiffs about the year 1881, erected and have since maintained valuable and permanent improvements on the premises and have ever since been in the actual, open, exclusive and adverse possession of the same. Prior to that time the possession was not exclusive and adverse, nor does the petition contain any such averment

It is claimed that these improvements were made only after obtaining the consent of the city, thereby recognizing its title; but on the contrary its knowledge of the character of plaintiffs’ possession together with the fact that it levied assessments against the plaintiffs and their grantors as the owners of the land should now estop it from appropriating the same to public use by accepting the dedication.

We think, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled toan injunction as prayed for, although not the owners in fee as averred.

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

GIFFEN, J.

The' strip of ground in controversy was designated “ Public Ground ” on the plat of Jesse Hunt, the original proprietor, made in 1807; but the city of Cincinnati never accepted the dedication, if it be [618]*618such, either by ordinance or other act. On the contrary, it levied and collected assessments for the improvement of the adjacent alleys upon the plaintiffs and their grantors as the owners of the land in dispute.

The testimony shows that the plaintiffs about the year 1881, erected and have since maintained valuable and permanent improvements on the premises and have ever since been in the actual, open, exclusive and adverse possession of the same. Prior to that time the possession was not exclusive and adverse, nor does the petition contain any such averment

It is claimed that these improvements were made only after obtaining the consent of the city, thereby recognizing its title; but on the contrary its knowledge of the character of plaintiffs’ possession together with the fact that it levied assessments against the plaintiffs and their grantors as the owners of the land should now estop it from appropriating the same to public use by accepting the dedication.

We think, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled toan injunction as prayed for, although not the owners in fee as averred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 617, 3 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 143, 1902 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunkenheimer-co-v-cincinnati-ohcircthamilton-1902.