The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1886-08-12

III elIecb HldklnS TIE td!i race anu the ]
canal one and the same The fee of |
the river bed was never sold or con-
veyed to the Canal Co, but only a
right to the joint use of the waters of
the river. Soon serthis arrangement !
the Franklin Land Co. which was
of The }lle Dr. Thos. Earl, /
Daniel p. Rhodes. aad others, convey
ed all its properly 10 the late Zenas /
Kent, who subsequently conveyed il |
to Hon. Marvin Kent, who sold ana !
decided the property to the center of
the river sometime about 1865 or 1866 |
as recently determined by the Supreme |
Court, and one of the important ques-
tions before the Supreme Court was, |
how far and to what extent the deed
from Mr.. Kant to Day, Williams IL
Co carried them into the river aud
gave them the ownership of the bed
of the stream and the right to the wf-
ter therein. The Supreme Court held
that D., w. d Co.'S deed carried them
to the center of the river, and by its
terms made them the owners in fee
simple thereof, with all the incidents
OF riparian ownership, subject only to
the use of the waters by the Canal
Co. AS the canal follows along vari
Gus streams through the four counties,
it turns out that there are quite num-
ownership of the stream are settled in
their favor by this decision. Another
question and one which affects much
greater humber of land owners, is also
settled by that decision, viz: What
title or interest the Canal Co. got
where it merely appropriated or CON.
demned the land for canal purposes,
but never received any deed therefor,
and what became of the title Or own
ership of the land at the death of the
Canal Co. OF course where Ii , Canal
Co. bought and took a title in fee to
property, it held it like any other per
son or corporation, and did not forfeit
it or cease to own it Oh forfeiture of its
charter and judicial death in 1878. 1t
was claimed by Day, Williams & Co.
that in all cases where the Canal Co
appropriated or condemned land or
property for canal purposes, that it
took only an easement, that is, the
right to use the property for such a
purpose, and then when it ceased to
use the property for such purpose, the
property returned to the owner at the
time of condemnation, and if he had
conveyed his interest in the fee, that
it passed to the person holding the ii.
tie thereto, The canal, from the State
line to Akron WAS about seventy mile:
long, and at least nine tenths of the
way was acquired by condemnation
or appropriation, the State having ap
pointed Owen Brown and others Com
missioners, who went along the line
of the canal and estimated the value
of the land taken, aud also the bene
fits to the land owner from having
the canal run through his farm, the
result being that in majority of case.
the land owner got nothing at all fol
his land, and not infrequently w
compelled in addition to pay quite
, sum of money besides the costs, fo
having the ditch through his farm
, An examination of the docket of ou
Common Pleas Court show various
instances of this kind, and one or TIVE
where the land owner not only go
! nothing for his land, and had to pay
, several dollars for benefits and costs
a but was also required to pay the law
yer's fee for the Canal Co. The de
q PENDANTS in the case claimed that b,
appropriation or condemnation pro
, ceedings under it's charter, and mas
q much as the State was one third own
, er, that the Canal Co. took fee simpl
I title i'm such eases, and when its char
/, ter was forfeited in 1878, and it cease,
to exist. its repre- sentatives could sci
y and convey the entire ditch, and tina
those who bought it, viz: the Cleve
r land & MahOning and the n. Y, p.
!. o. r. r. Co.'S. under whom the de
e fendant claimed got perfect fee sim
q pie title from Akron to the State line
+ aud that therefore neither d, w SEC
{ or any other land owner had any righ
e or title to the property as against tn
= defendant, who claimed TO have sue
z ceeded by purchase and deed, as til
f representative of the Canal Co. an
2 those claiming underit The ST prem
: Court held that in all cases where tn
t Canal Co. got no deed from the Ian
! owner, it had only the right to use til
!, land for canal purposes, and when i
ceased thus to use it, all its rights end
e ed, and the land thus relieved of tb
: burden of canal, passed to the owue
9 unencumbered, and having no righ
e in the fee and no other right excep
e simply to use it for canal purposes,
I could convey no right to any one else
{ The suit was commenced in 1881, an,
: injunction allowed restraining tn
r. r. Co. from entering upon or occu
= pying the land in controversy becaus
f the property belonged TO D., w & CO
for the reason above stated, Soon al
ter the injunction was allowed tn
} defendants moved to dissolve it, an,
the above legal propositions with vari
Gus others were heard before Judg
r w. It. Spear, of the Common Plea
3 Court, who ruled in favor of the plain
3 tiff and sustained the injunction. Tn,
/ case was again tried at the Januar,
, term. 1881, of the Common Pleas Court
before Judge Arrel, and a decree en-
, tered pro founa in favor of the plain
tiffs, and the defendant appealed to tn,
, District Court. At the April term
1888, of the District Court, by a divi
, ded Court and bare majority of one
the issues were found against Day
Williams & Co., and the case dismiss
ed at their costs, and thereupon they
took it to the Supreme Court at Co
lnmbus, where the final decision O
the highest Court in the State was in
theiI favor, and the defendant wa.
perpetually enjoined from using, occu.