Legal Opinion

Henry v. Columbus Depot Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1939No. 27314PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The facts heretofore related are undisputed, and as a consequence the sole issue is one of law as to whether the depot company, by the appropriation proceedings, acquired a fee to the premises in question, or only an easement therein for the purposes of maintaining and operating a terminal interurban depot thereon. If it acquired a fee, then the prayer of the claimants must be denied; but if only an easement, the claimants are entitled to prevail and have their fee-simple title quieted.

The title of the depot company came to it not by deed of conveyance, but through the exercise of the right…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  2. Neitzel v. Spokane International Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Lithgow v. PearsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1913

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hinman v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Penn Central Corporation v. U.S. Railroad Vest Corporation Beverly D. Crone, Auditor of St. Joseph CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  3. Burnett v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Carter v. State, Dept. of RoadsNebraska Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Pierce v. Cherry Valley Farms, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1945

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API