Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_13/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMPENSATION FOR. PIKE USED FOR STREET PURPOSES.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    The Cincinnati, Columbus & Wooster Turnpike Company v. Village of Milford.
    Decided, December 4, 1909.
    
      Turnpikes — Action by Company for Compensation — Where Section of Pike is Used as a Street — Situs of a Village Situated in Two Counties — Venue—Section 1536-136.
    
    1. An action by a turnpike company for recovery of compensation for that portion of its roadway which lies within the corporate limits of a village and has been taken possession of and is being used for street purposes is transitory in character and must be brought in the county in which the defendant village is situated.
    2. Where a village is situated partly in one county and partly in another it must be sued in the county in which it has its situs.
    
      Thorne Baker, for plaintiff in error.
    
      D. W. Murphy, for the village.
    The plaintiff in error brought an action for recovery of compensation for something over a mile of roadway, which it was claimed the village had taken possession of and is using as a street without first making compensation therefor. The defendant denied that it was liable to be sued in Hamilton county, for the reason that it is an incorporated village situated in both the county of Hamilton and the county of Clermont, but has its principal seat of government, mayor’s office and place of business in Clemont county, and has no seat of government, mayor’s office or place of business in Hamilton. The court below held for the village.
    Giffen, P. J.; Smith, J., and Swing, J., concur.
   An action under Section 1536-136, Revised Statutes, to recover from a city compensation for a turnpike included within the corporate limits, is under the code, not local, but transitory in character, and must be brought in the county where the defendant resides or may be sumoned. The defendant in error is situated partly in two counties,- but has its situs in Clermont county, where it must be sued in such action. City of Fostoria v. Fox, 60 O. S., 340.

Judgment affirmed.