Alexander v. City of Toledo

Ohio Supreme Court

Alexander v. City of Toledo

168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 495

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 11, 1959·No. No. 35781·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question, the answer to which is determinative of this case, is whether the words, “for municipal purposes only, but not for school purposes,” appearing in the caption of the ballot were unauthorized and thus invalidated the election. This court is of the opinion that the quoted words were unauthorized in the light of Section 3505.06, Revised Code, and that their use in the ballot invalidated the election:

[496]*496The judgment of the, Court of Common Pleas is reversed on authority of Beck v. City of Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St., 473, 124 N. E. (2d), 120.

Judgment reversed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The question, the answer to which is determinative of this case, is whether the words, “for municipal purposes only, but not for school purposes,” appearing in the caption of the ballot were unauthorized and thus invalidated the election. This court is of the opinion that the quoted words were unauthorized in the light of Section 3505.06, Revised Code, and that their use in the ballot invalidated the election:

[496]*496The judgment of the, Court of Common Pleas is reversed on authority of Beck v. City of Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St., 473, 124 N. E. (2d), 120.

Judgment reversed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Alexander v. City of Toledo, 168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 495 (Ohio 1959).

Pincite

168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 495 (Alexander v. City of Toledo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.