State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Term. & V. Ry.

Citations

• 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 377

Syllabus

<p>CANAL LANDS — DEEDS—PARTIES—QUO WARRANTO.</p> <p>1. Conveyance oe Canal Lands to Cleveland not in Fee Simple.</p> <p>Tbe act entitled “An Act to authorize the city of Cleveland to enter upon, and. occupy a part of tbe Ohio canal,” passed April 29, 1872 (69 O. L. 182), does not authorize the conveyance of a fee simple estate by the-governor of Ohio to said city of Cleveland; but only the right to occupy the lands therein described for the purposes specified, or similar purposes.</p> <p>2. City not Necessary Party in Quo Warranto to Oust Railway Occupying Canal Lands under Lease from the City.</p> <p>In an action in quo warranto, brought by the attorney general against said' railway lessee and its successors and assigns, to oust the same from said premises, the city of Cleveland is not a necessary party. State v. Railway, 53 Ohio St. 189 [41 N. E. Rep. 205], followed.</p> <p>[Syllabus by the court.]</p>