Arnold v. Flattery
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned from the county of Fairfield. It was an action of trespass, in which a verdict was found for the defendant, and a new trial moved for, upon the ground of the admission of irrelevant testimony.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourned from the county of Fairfield. It was an action of trespass, in which a verdict was found for the defendant, and a new trial moved for, upon the ground of the admission of irrelevant testimony. The following state of facts was agreed by the parties: The declaration in this ease, lays the trespass to have been committed on the southwest quarter of section No. 1, township 15, range 19. The plea alleges that the defendant was a supervisor of a certain highway passing through and upon said tract of land, and that he entered upon- the same, within and upon said highway, in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
Where a road has been laid out in the manner jirescribed hy law, opened and used many years, it can not be allowed that it shall be suddenly closed by any individual through whose land it passes, on the hypothesis that the road used does not exactly follow the courses and distances of the recorded survey. Nor can it be required, after the lapse of many years, that-to sustain a public road every preliminary step directed to be. taken in establishing it must be proven by existing papers or records. In this case the court admitted the record and parol proof of the opening and using…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Township TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Beebe v. ScheidtOhio Supreme Court · 1862
- Keyes v. TaitSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Anderson v. Commissioners of Hamilton CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1861