Ohio Edison Co. v. Carroll

HofstetteR, J:,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons. •

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. The Watson Co. (1925), 112 Ohio St. 385, stated the following in its syllabus:

“1/ In this state the fee to the country highway is in the abutting owner, and the public has only the right of improvement thereof and uninterrupted travel- thereover.-

“2. An owner of land abutting upon a country highway, whose title extends to the center of the road along the side of which are located shade trees, has a property right in such trees, and the same may-'not be interfered with;…