Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Conserv. Dist.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1932No. 23326PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The legal postulate of counsel for defend. ant is that, since the petition affirmatively states that the defendant also claims title to the canal lands which the state claims to own, and alleges that the defendant's lessee is in possession thereof, the case assumes the same aspect as that of a private proprietor seeking recovery of premises against one in possession; and that therefore the remedy pursued should be in ejectment and not in quo warranto. Simply stated the question is: Is the remedy by quo warranto available to the state where it seeks to protect its title to canal lands, where…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Crabbe v. Middletown Hydraulic Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State, Ex Rel. Duffy v. Lakefront Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Conserv. Dist.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. State ex rel. Bettman v. Miami Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. State ex rel. Duffy v. Lakefront East Fifty-Fifth Street Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API