Taylor v. Bailey

Ohio Supreme Court

Taylor v. Bailey

1 Wright 646, 1 Ohio Ch. 646

DecidedJuly 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 646 (Taylor v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Bailey, 1 Wright 646, 1 Ohio Ch. 646 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, J.

The writing, though without seal and invalid as a lease, would, as to the parties, be construed good, if the lessee had entered and enjoyed, or be held good as a mere contract. But whether good as a lease or not, it confers no right of private vjay; nor does the record disclose any evidence from which a way of necessity could be maintained as is argued. The road laid out by the county authority was a public road, though erroneously pronounced a private one by the court. There can be no private way laid out under our laws except by the township trustees. It is argued that there can be no way by prescription in this county, because of our recent settlement: we think otherwise, but the proof in this case was, that this road was always used as such. The ro.ad opened and used, we think a public road, though not on the exact line of the survey, and the court erred in charging other-wise. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

WRIGHT, J.

The writing, though without seal and invalid as a lease, would, as to the parties, be construed good, if the lessee had entered and enjoyed, or be held good as a mere contract. But whether good as a lease or not, it confers no right of private vjay; nor does the record disclose any evidence from which a way of necessity could be maintained as is argued. The road laid out by the county authority was a public road, though erroneously pronounced a private one by the court. There can be no private way laid out under our laws except by the township trustees. It is argued that there can be no way by prescription in this county, because of our recent settlement: we think otherwise, but the proof in this case was, that this road was always used as such. The ro.ad opened and used, we think a public road, though not on the exact line of the survey, and the court erred in charging other-wise. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 646, 1 Ohio Ch. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-bailey-ohio-1834.