Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-07-19
CLEVELAND, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 49, 1860.

THE BATH STREET DEcrsIoS.-The follow
ing synopsis of the decision of Judge Nc
Lean in the celebrated Bath Street case is
furnished by a gentleman engaged in the
case to the press:
Henry Holmes, et al, US. Circuit Court,
vs.. the Northern District
c. C.&C. R. R. Co., ct al Of Ohio.
This was a bill filed by the heirs and as
signees Of the proprietors Of the Connecticut
Land Company, asserting an equitable title
TO land lying nOrtherlY Of Lot No. l9l in the
city of Cleveland, known as BATH Street, and
strip of land lying northerly of the brow
of the bank along the Lake shore easterly Of
Water street, and extending TO the waters
edge. These parcels of land, the complain
ants allege, constituted part of the premis-
es purchased by the Connecticut Land Com
pany from the State Of Connecticut in 1875,
and which were conveyed by the proprie-
tors of said company TO certain trustees for
the convenience Of the proprietors; that
these parcels were never divided, but are
owned, in equity, by complainants; that in
1885 said trustees wrongfully conveyed said
parcel known as Bath street to one Thomas
Lloyd that those claiming under said
Lloyd sold and conveyed said parcel to she
defendants; and that the defendants thereby
became vested with the title 10 the same,
with full notice of the rights of the complain
ants, and that thereby became the trustees
~ inUctuns of the complainants; that the
defendants have been IN possession of said
Bath street, by themselves and their tenants
since l849, and have received large sums for
the rent of portions of the same, and should
be held to account for the use Of the por-
tions occupied by themselves. The COM
plainants therefore ask that they may re-
cover a decree against said defendants for the
amount Of rents 50 received, and for the use
Of said premises, and that the premises, be-
ing incapable of division, may be sold, and
the proceeds of such sale be paid over to
cOmplainants.
The defendants in their answers allege
that said premises known as Bath street,
were, at the time of the survey by the said
Land Company in 1896, dedicated 10 the pub
lie as street and public lGndiHq-that the
same were accepted by the public, and used
for the purpose contemplated by the dediea-
tion from the time of the settlement of the
city to the present day, and that said prem
ises were in September, 1919, part Of one
of the streets OF said city of Cleveland, and
that they derive their right to the oceUpan-
cy of the same under a contract then made
with the city of Cleveland by virtue of the
authority conferred upon them and said city
by their charters. They deny that they
claim any right whatever 10 said premises
by virtue ofany grant from said Lloyd, and
say that the only purpose for which they took
conveyance from the Lloyd claimants were
to receive the peaceable possession Of said
premises.
The Court, in an elaborate and most able
review Of the whole case, held:
1ef That fha r,rarnisae in, cf,auffor, 1-y,ov--,
as the Bath Street Tract, were dedicated to
the public by the Connecticut Land Com
pany in 1895. That the Company caused a
re-survey of the Plat, embracing said Bath
street to be made in 1902, and the minutes
of such re-suryeY TO be recorded, as shown
by the testimony; and, under the circum-
stances of the case, the Court will presume
that the map made by the Surveyor en-
ployed-Spatiord-w left for record togeth-
er with the minutes, whereby under the
Territorial act Of 1900, the title to said street
vested in the county for the benefit of the
public.
I'd. That said dedication was accepted by
the public, and the premises used, so far as
the same were capable of being used, for the
purposes of a street and public landing from
5d. That the leases made 6y said city o.
portions Of said premises in lS49, being done
under the authority Of the Legislature, and
for temporary purposes, could not operate 10
the prejudice Of the public, and cannot be
regarded as an abandonment, nor can the
arTan cement made with the defendants
have such effect.
4th. That the title to said premises having
passed out OF said Company and its Trus-
| tees by virtue of said dedication, no title
passed 70 said Lloyd BY virtue Of the convey
ance to him from said Trusteesj and the de-
PENDANTS are not estOPped from showing tnai
no title passed by such deed.
/ 5th. That independent Of any dedica-
ton of said premises, the Connecticut Land
1 COMPANY and those claiming under II
are estopped from setting up any claim tC
the premises in question, because by th'
| terms of the Resolution passed by said Com
! many at the time Of its practical dissolution
IN January, 1909, it is evident that tnel
intended to abandon any rights, 70 Whlei
they might have been entitled IN the prem
ises in question, and It would be against goo
conscience, after the lapse OF hall century
and the expenditure of more than half mil
lion dollars by the present occupants to per
| nit said CompBny, or those claiming unde
| it. now TO assert title to that which, when J
was ouparatively worthless, had been a0an
dOned.
6tb. That the possession taken by Lloyd
and those claiming under him, OF the prem
ises in question, was taken in their o'eH T'gl
and cannot be counted on by the complain
ants 10 obyiate the objection Of the lapse
time; and although the statute OF hnlt'
tons does not apply to the case, yeta court
equity, acting upon well settled prlnclPlG; |;
f bv reason of the lapse Of time and the stat
, 1sssof the claim, would refuse to lnterPose 4
the relief of the eomplainents.
l The Court thereupon directed adeeree
{ be- entered, dismissing said bill