Webber v. Toledo
Lucas Circuit Court
HEARD ON ERROR. cited : An action to recover compensation for lands taken for public use must be brought by the owner of the land at the time the action is commenced. Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co. v. Perkins, 49 Ohio St. 326, 333 [31 N. E. Rep. 350]; Fries v. Railway Co., 56 Ohio St. 135 [46 N. E. Rep. 516]; Clarke v. Cleveland, 6 Circ. Dec. 176 (9 R. 118); Cincinnati, P. & V. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 10 Circ.
Read the full summary
HEARD ON ERROR. cited : An action to recover compensation for lands taken for public use must be brought by the owner of the land at the time the action is commenced. Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co. v. Perkins, 49 Ohio St. 326, 333 [31 N. E. Rep. 350]; Fries v. Railway Co., 56 Ohio St. 135 [46 N. E. Rep. 516]; Clarke v. Cleveland, 6 Circ. Dec. 176 (9 R. 118); Cincinnati, P. & V. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 10 Circ. Dec. 745 (19 R. 589). Elizabeth Webber possessed all the rights of Jacob Webber and was therefore, the only proper person who could have brought this action Railroad Co. v. Robbins, 35 Ohio St. 531;…
1Opinion of the CourtHaynes, J.
Elizabeth Webber brought suit in the court of common pleas, against the city of Toledo, in which she set up that about February 15, 1875, the common council of the city duly passed the necessary legislation to open Niagara street a certain width; that on June 21, 1875, the common council passed an ordinance to appropriate the lands described in the petition, being parts of lots 228 and 248, Stickney’s addition, and also parts of lots 223 and 224; and on September 12, 1875, the city council made application to the probate court, and steps were taken whereby the amount of compensation to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miles v. RichwineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828