Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0600-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "POLLOCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 633
    UNION LAND & B. CO. v. YOUNGSTOWN (City)
    Ohio Appeals, Seventh District, Mahoning County
    March 23, 1923
    This opinion has not heen published except in Abstract.
    MUNICIPAL POWERS — (1) City cannot interfere with property in possession of another, relying on weakness of latter’s title — (2) Injunction is proper way to prevent such action by city.
    Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Reversed
    Attorneys — Names not furnished.
   POLLOCK, J.

(Epitomized Opinion)

The Building Co. was, at the time of the commencement of the suit, in possession of a parcel of land in the city of Youngstown, upon which it had constructed a large building. Although there was some confusion as to the exact boundaries of the lot, it appeared that since 1802 it had been openly and notoriously used by the Building Có., and that for a great part of that time some sort of railing had been constructed about the entire tract to which the Company now claims title. The City claims its right, under the Code, to remove the railing maintained there at the present time, on the grouuu mat it is a nuisance. Judgment for City in lower court. Held by the Court of Appeals in reversing the judgment:

1. A City cannot enter upon the property of another and remove the private structures, thereon, acting merely upon the weakness of the occupying claimant’s title.

2. The proper remedy to prevent a municipality from interfering with private property rights is by injunction.