Erkenbrecher v. Este
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
Reserved to Special Term on the pleadings, demurrers, and motions to strike out, which, are set out fully in the statement. ' . The questions in this cause arise upon the pleadings, which are very voluminous.
Read the full summary
Reserved to Special Term on the pleadings, demurrers, and motions to strike out, which, are set out fully in the statement. ' . The questions in this cause arise upon the pleadings, which are very voluminous. The" petition alleges that before July 5, 1881, the Bank of the United States was the owner in fee of a large tract of land, and granted to the State of Ohio, for the use of the canal fund, a lot of land on the east side of plaintiff’s lot; that on that day the bank conveyed to Clark Williams, in fee, the lot now owned by plaintiff, described as follows : “ All that lot of land in the…
1Opinion of the CourtHagans, J.
The pleadings have been substantially stated, so that the points presented by the various motions and demurrers might the more readily be seen.
We do not understand that there is really anything involved in this litigation but the bare right of navigation of the basin referred to. There seems to be no complaint in other respects. Upon the admissions of the demurrers, there arises very many questions. Among them these:
Had not the Bank of the Hnited Statess previously conveyed to the State of Ohio the basin as a water-way and adjunct to the navigation of the canal, so that this subsequent…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haight v. Morris AqueductU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1826
- Watrous v. RodgersTexas Supreme Court · 1856