Ampt v. Cincinnati

8 Ohio N.P. 511
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
DecidedOctober 15, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ohio N.P. 511 (Ampt v. Cincinnati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ampt v. Cincinnati, 8 Ohio N.P. 511 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1893).

Opinion

Sayler, J.

The plaintiff brings his action as a resident •of said city, and a taxpayer, etc., against the •city of Cincinnati, August Herman, John Frey, J. B. W'astíburn and George T. Sterritt, the board of administration of Cincinnati; D. W. Brown, auditor, and Henry Ziegler, treasurer, and sets out that for over fifty years the said ■city of Cincinnati has been, and now is the owner of a system of water works, supplying the citizens and the city itself with water, con■sisting of real estate, machinery, reservoirs, water pipe laid' in the streets, and a large •amount of other property; that since 1879, under section 2212 of the Revised Statutes, said system of water works and all its property, and the supplying of the citizens with water and the fixing of water rents and collecting of its revenues and the disbursements of its funds, have been in the hands and under the control of the board of public works of said city and its successors in office, acting as the trustees of said water works under the statutes governing and regulating the management of water works for cities of the first class, and now are in the hands of the said board of administration; that the revenues for the year 1893 will be over $750,000, and for the months of October, November and December, 1893, from the date of filing the petition, over $187,590; all of which funds have been or will be paid into the water works fund of said city, and into the hands of the treasurer of said city; that said funds are and will be the proceeds of water rents, of building permits, and of license for street sprinkling; that the revenues thus collected by said board of administration and paid into the water works fund from January 1, 1893, to the date of the filing of the petition, to-wit, $562,500 and over, has been paid out and disbursed by the treasurer of said city upon warrants drawn by the auditor of said city for claims allowed and approved, and ordered paid by said board of administration, without ever having been authorized, ordered or sanctioned either by the board of legislation or by the board of supervisors of said city acting as a-tax commission, and without any ordinance having ever been passed for the six months period ending December 31, 1893, by the board of legislation and approved 'by said board of supervisors ^acting as a tax commission, making provision therefor as required by section 2690h. 2690i, and 26907, of Revised Statutes; that it is the intention of said board of ad'm^nistrp.tion ito- _ allow and order claims against the cit to be paid from the funds now in the waterworks fund and which will come therein up to December 31, 1893, to the full extent of said fund, and that the auditor will draw warrants therefor, and said treasurer will pay such warrants, although no ordinance has been passed appropriating any money whatever from the waterworks fund for any purpose or for claims of any kind1 for the semi-annual period ending December 31, 1893; that unless the count by its injunction restrains the defendants, all the moneys now in the waterworks fund and that may have come in up to December 31, 1893, will be so disbursed and expended without the approval or sanction of said boards and without any ordinance appropriating the funds or making -provision for such payment

Wherefore^ to the end that the waterworks management'of said city, as to disbursements, may be brought under the benign restrictions of the board of legislation and of the board of supervisors of said city, the plaintiff asks that the said board of administration may be perpetually enjoined from allowing the said auditor from drawing warrants for, and the [512]*512said treasurer from paying any money out of the waterworks fund of said city, between the dateof filing the petition and December 31,^893.

To this petition the defendants demur, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

By section 2409, of the statutes of 1880, power is given to the board of administration to manage, conduct and control the waterworks, furnish supplies, collect water rents, appoint officers, fix terms of office, and fix salaries.

Section 2413 provides that the funds collected shall be deposited with the city treasurer; and section 2414 provides that the fund shall be kept as a separate and distinct fund, subject to the order of the trustees or board, “and all orders drawn by the trustees or board on the treasurer of the corporation shall be signed by one of the trustees or board, and countersigned by the clerk of the waterworks or -the board of public works.”

By section 2229, the revenue of the waterworks shall be expended by the board, and contracts for waterworks purposes shall be made by it only, and from said revenues the board shall pay the interest upon any bonds heretofore or hereafter issued by the city for waterworks purposes, after the expenditure of the amount raised by the current levy of taxes to pay the interest of such bonds.

Section 2412 of said statutes provides that any surplus of fund over expenditures may be used for repairs, etc.; and section 2435, provides that the expenditures shall not exceed the revenue.

The affairs of the waterworks are being administered. -by the board of administration in the manner set out in the petition under the powers conferred by these sections. That the powers so conferred ,are sufficient to authorize said board to so administer the said affairs cannot be doubted. The only question is whether these sections of the statute of 1880 are in force in Cincinnati.

By the act of April 16, 1883, (vol. 80, p. 125, O. L.,) a 'board of tax commissioners was provided for in Cincinnati.

By section 2690f, of said act, it is provided that the city comptroller shall furnish to the comftion council and to the board of tax commissioners, on or -before the first Monday in April in each year, certain statements, among which is (.5) a statement containing an approximate and detailed estimate of the money needed to pay all lawful expenses of the city and its several departments, offices and institutions for each twelve months following the current and succeeding, fiscal year; and in calculating the amount of money needed, he shall take into account the money then in the treasury, as well as taxes collectible, etc., and all other sources of revenue of the city, and (6) a statement estimating the total percentage he deems necessary to be levied in .that year to provide sufficient means for paying the city expenses for the fiscal period named in number five, and to what funds and in what proportions sajd levy should be apportioned. Section 2690g, provides that the board of tax commissioners and the common council shall examine and read such statements ; and after the council shall have determined the percentage to be levied, the same shall be submitted to the tax commissioners who shall approve or reject the same, or any part of the same, and any part rejected shall not become a valid levy.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ohio N.P. 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ampt-v-cincinnati-ohctcomplhamilt-1893.