From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waid v. Heistand

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 18, 1930
174 N.E. 139 (Ohio 1930)

Opinion

No. 22237

Decided June 18, 1930.

Constitutional law — Eminent domain — State may take private property — without first compensating owner — Elimination of grade crossings — Section 19, Article I, Constitution.

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals of Clark county.

Mr. Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, and Mr. J.A. Godown, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank M. Krapp and Mr. Stewart L. Tatum, for defendant in error.


It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that said judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed for the reason that the statutes providing for the taking of necessary property by the state for the purpose of the elimination of grade crossings is within the meaning and intent of the provisions of Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, authorizing the taking of private property without first making compensation to the owner, "when taken for the purpose of making or repairing roads which shall be open to the public without charge," and are therefore valid, and that compensation and damages may be subsequently determined as provided by law. The court coming now to enter the decree which should have been entered by the Court of Appeals it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the injunction heretofore allowed restraining said proceedings be, and the same is hereby, dissolved.

Judgment reversed.

KINKADE, ROBINSON, JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY and ALLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Waid v. Heistand

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 18, 1930
174 N.E. 139 (Ohio 1930)
Case details for

Waid v. Heistand

Case Details

Full title:WAID, DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS v. HEISTAND

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 18, 1930

Citations

174 N.E. 139 (Ohio 1930)
174 N.E. 139

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. v. Ferguson

" The section then goes on to provide that "in all other cases, where private property shall be taken for…

Carnabuccio v. Penna. Rd. Co.

2. If the law does authorize the solicitor to make the application for the city, the acts of the defendant…