Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 880
    JACKSON v. DICE et
    No. 19997.
    Supreme Court
    On motion to certify.
    Dock. July 20, 1926
    4 Abs. 510.
    997. REAL PROPERTY — Where a dispute of a boundary line arises between the owner of adjacent property may the court fix a straight line if in so doing it will result in an unnecessary injury to one with no corresponding benefit to the other?
    Attorneys — Bannon & Bannon, Portsmouth, for Jackson; A. R. Johnson, O. E. Irish, Iron-ton, and W. J. Meyer, Portsmouth, for Dice et.
   Elizabeth Dice et al brought this action originally in the Scioto Common Pleas against Hala Jackson for an injunction restraining trespass.

Jackson filed an answer which contained the contention of adverse possession of the strip of land in dispute and thereupon an amended petition was filed in an attempt to establish a definite boundary line. Dice claims ownership of the property by adverse possession.

The Court of Appeals established an irregular boundary line, refusing to establish a straight boundary. line because it would do unnecessary injury to one party without a corresponding benefit to the other.

Jackson in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That under the circumstances Dice could not have used said strip adversely.

2. That Dice is not entitled to possession of the claimed strip of land by adverse possession.