Henry v. Columbus Depot Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Neitzel v. Spokane International Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Lithgow v. PearsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hinman v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- Penn Central Corporation v. U.S. Railroad Vest Corporation Beverly D. Crone, Auditor of St. Joseph CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Burnett v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1946
- Carter v. State, Dept. of RoadsNebraska Supreme Court · 1977
- Pierce v. Cherry Valley Farms, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.