
    No. 666
    DOVER (Village) v. BAY (Village)
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 5100.
    July 1, 1924
    Middleton, P. J., Mauck and Sayre, JJ., sitting.
    1179. TOWNSHIPS — Upon division of a township into separate units, realty used for park purposes, situated in one of the new units, becomes the property of the new unit to the exclusion of the old unit.
   MAUCK, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action in the Common Pleas to quiet t’tle wherein the Village of Dover and others were defendants, and the Village of Bay was plaintiff. In 1899, Dover was one of the townships of Cuyahoga County and the trustees of the township bought the land in question, consisting of less than two acres along the lake shore and within the township, for a public park. In 1901 the hamlet of Bay was erected in said township and the boundaries of the .hamlet included the land in question. In 1902, by statute the hamlet of Bay became the village of Bay. Later the village of Bay was detached from the township of Dover and was erected into the separate township of Bay. The remainder of the township of Dover was divided, one part becoming another separate township and the remnant left becoming what, is now the village of Dover. Neither the old township of Dover nor any of the new' subdivisions ever executed a conveyance to the land in question. The Common Pleas decreed the relief sought and the village of Dover alone prosecuted error to the Court of Appeals, ■which held:

The taxpayers whose money went into the original purchase are beyond identification and the real estate subjected to taxation at that time is partly in the village of Dover, partly in the village of Bay and partly in another village, made defendant herein. The question is whether, by operation of law, the legal title to the property in question passed' into the township in which it was situated or remained in the old township, which retained the original name of Dover.

On the absence of specific statutory adjustment of the matter the new subdivision may have that portion of the public property that falls within its boundaries and the old unit owns only the public property within its new limits. 39 L. A. R. (N. S.) 285. This court does not hold that all public property within its boundaries vested in the new political unit, but it does so hold regarding the property in question, which was admittedly acquired for park purposes. The village of Bay, however, is only the holder of the bare legal title to the property with power to administer a trust for the benefit of the people. With this modification the judgment will 'be affirmed.

Attorneys — Locher, Green & Woods, for Dover Village; Landfear, Baskin & Fleharty, for Bay Village; all of Cleveland.  