Lessee of Cincinnati v. Commissioners
Ohio Supreme Court
'This is au ejectment reserved in the county of Hamilton. The -object of the action was to recover the possession of a certain piece of ground, situated in the city of Cincinnati, bounded on the east by Main street, on the north by Fifth street, on the west by Walnut street, and on the south by an alley, running from Walnut to Main street.
Read the full summary
'This is au ejectment reserved in the county of Hamilton. The -object of the action was to recover the possession of a certain piece of ground, situated in the city of Cincinnati, bounded on the east by Main street, on the north by Fifth street, on the west by Walnut street, and on the south by an alley, running from Walnut to Main street. Upon the trial of the ease at the May term of this court, 1835, the jury returned the following special verdict: The jury find: 1. That the original proprietors of the town of ■Cincinnati did dedicate the property in dispute for public uses. “ 2. That the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Hitohcook
delivered the opinion of the court:
The finding of the jury in this case is not as full as could have-, been wished, and it is not, perhaps, improper, according to the-suggestion of the'plaintiff’s counsel, to resort to public history, and to official records to ascertain facts which have not been found by the jury.
The premises in controversy constitute four lots in the city of Cincinnati. Subsequent to the organization of the county of Hamilton, these lots were occupied by the county, for purposes of county buildings, and continued to be so *oceupied, until the-court-house…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State Ex Rel. Bedard v. Village of LockbourneOhio Court of Appeals · 1990