Breuer v. Gibson

Hamilton Circuit Court

Breuer v. Gibson

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 266, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 48

DecidedMay 19, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 266 (Breuer v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breuer v. Gibson, 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 266, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 48 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action [Charles C. Breuer and H. W. Morganthaler v. John H. Gibson et al.] was commenced to enjoin the collection of certain assessments levied upon the plaintiff’s lots for a street improvement, on the ground that the street was improperly and negligently constructed. The amended answer contains the averment that the plaintiff petitioned the city through its proper boards tc make said improvement in the manner in which .it was afterwards made, and wherein they agreed to pay for the whole cost of such improvement except 2 per cent of the entire cost of the improvement and the costs of the intersections. This averment is nowhere controverted by reply, and hence the court did not err in refusing to hear testimony tending to prove that the street was negligently and improperly constructed.

A rehearing will therefore be' denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action [Charles C. Breuer and H. W. Morganthaler v. John H. Gibson et al.] was commenced to enjoin the collection of certain assessments levied upon the plaintiff’s lots for a street improvement, on the ground that the street was improperly and negligently constructed. The amended answer contains the averment that the plaintiff petitioned the city through its proper boards tc make said improvement in the manner in which .it was afterwards made, and wherein they agreed to pay for the whole cost of such improvement except 2 per cent of the entire cost of the improvement and the costs of the intersections. This averment is nowhere controverted by reply, and hence the court did not err in refusing to hear testimony tending to prove that the street was negligently and improperly constructed.

A rehearing will therefore be' denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 266, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breuer-v-gibson-ohcircthamilton-1906.