Case Name: LINWOOD PARK CO v. HERKNER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1931-06-15
Citations: 10 Ohio Law Abs. 397
Docket Number: No. 11633
Parties: LINWOOD PARK CO v HERKNER
Judges: MAUCK, PJ, MIDDLETON, J, (4th Dist) and FARR, J, (7th Dist) sitting.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 10
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
LINWOOD PARK CO v HERKNER
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No. 11633.
Decided June 15, 1931
O. J. Horn, C. E. Wecsill, and H. N. McLaughlin, Cleveland, for Linwood Park Co.
Locher, Green & Woods, Cleveland, for Herkner.
MAUCK, PJ, MIDDLETON, J, (4th Dist) and FARR, J, (7th Dist) sitting.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT:
In the opinion filed herein, the court should have said that the motion for a directed verdict was properly overruled because the trial court was without power to *say that the claimed easement was not appurtenant to the land. That was a question to be determined by the jury. It does npt follow that because the first 170 lots were not sold with such appurtenants that subsequent sales did not carry such an appurtenance. We are not to be understood as directing the trial court to hold on retrial that the plaintiff had the appurtenance claimed as a matter of law. It is a question of fact. The former opinion is modified accordingly. The former judgment is adhered to and the application for rehearing is denied. .