Smith v. Heuston
Ohio Supreme Court
In chancery, from Butler. The county of Butler was erected in 1803, and commissioners were appointed to fix the seat of justice -therein.
Read the full summary
In chancery, from Butler. The county of Butler was erected in 1803, and commissioners were appointed to fix the seat of justice -therein. Before the place of the seat of justice was agreed upon, the proprietor of the town pf Hamilton proposed to the commissioners, in writing, in case that town should be selected as the site, “to give, for the use of the county, a square for public buildings, agreeably to a plan of the town, etc.; also a square for the church and burying ground, consisting of eight town-lots, together with the commons in front of the town, for public uses, such as boatyards,”…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Unless the complainants have a right, as individuals, to interfere to protect county property conveyed to it for the use of public buildings, and restrain the county commissioners, the agents of 'the county, from using such property as in their judgment may best promote the object of the grant and the public interest, the bill must be dismissed. The right to interfere is sought to be sustained from analogy to the class of cases where one of many commoners or parishioners seek to restrain from infringing the common right, or to establish a general modus. The analogy, in our opinion, does not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States, Ex Rel. v. C., O. G. R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
- United States ex rel. Search v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
- First German Reformed Church v. Summit Co. (Comr's.)Summit Circuit Court · 1902