City of Cleveland v. Lausche

49 N.E.2d 207, 71 Ohio App. 273, 38 Ohio Law. Abs. 421, 26 Ohio Op. 123, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 745
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 1943
Docket19094
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 49 N.E.2d 207 (City of Cleveland v. Lausche) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Cleveland v. Lausche, 49 N.E.2d 207, 71 Ohio App. 273, 38 Ohio Law. Abs. 421, 26 Ohio Op. 123, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 745 (Ohio Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

*422 OPINION

Ey SKEEL, J.

The City of Cleveland has for a great many years maintained' and operated a Zoological Garden, first in Wade Park and then, of late years, in Brookside Park. The purpose of a Zoological Garden is cultural and educational, and is an activity which a municipality clearly has a legal right to own and to operate.

The city, on April 24, 1940, through its council, passed a resolution directing the mayor’s advisory committee and the committee on parks and public property of the city council to study the-feasibility of entering into negotiations with the Cleveland Mu • seum of Natural History to employ their services in the operation and management of the Brookside Zoo. The report of this committee was most favorable and on September 4, 1940, the city council by an emergency resolution authorized and directed the-Director of Public Property to enter into an agreement for the development, operation and management of the Cleveland Zoological Garden by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Through-all of their negotiations, as is made to appear by the resolution-passed by the city council, resulting in the contract between the-city and the museum which was signed and concluded on September 25, 1940, the city declared in effect that the operation of the-zoo by the city had not been wholly successful: that the maintenance and operation of the zoo is. a public service of great value to the citizens of Cleveland; that the people “do not desire to discontinue the zoo;” that the Cleveland Museum of Natural History has-for twenty years closely cooperated with the parks department of the city in the interest of all forms of natural history and because-of its broad experience and knowledge in the problems of successfully extending and operating the Zoological Garden and its ability to secure donations to supplement the funds necessary for its operation, it would be for the best interest of the city to take advantage of such skilled management and employ the services of the museum in the continued operation of the zoo; that by so doing the city will effect a substantial saving and increase the-value of the Zoological Garden in the public interest..

The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, as established by the agreed statement of facts, is a corporation not for profit, organized under the laws of Ohio, its efforts being directed by public-spirited citizens purposing only to contribute generously of their *423 time and money to the educational and cultural life of Cleveland, particularly with regard to subjects in the field of natural history.

The contract, after declaring the advantages accruing to the City of Cleveland in securing the services of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History as above set forth, provides in suostance that the museum shall, in consideration of the appropriation and the payment to the museum of certain money as in the contract provided, manage, operate and develop the Cleveland Zoological Garden as in its opinion will best serve the interest of the people of ■Cleveland, and providing that no physical change shall be made in the plant and grounds of the zoo by the museum without the consent of the Director of Public Property; that the determination ■of what living creatures shall comprise the Zoological Garden collection is within the entire discretion of the museum, and for the purposes of carrying out the duties imposed upon the museum the city assigned the title to the collection of animals as it existed •on the date of the contract to the museum together with all tools and equipment used in connection therewith “in trust, however, for the purposes only of carrying out the terms of the agreement and upon the termination of the agreement title to the property then constituting the zoo to revert to the city;” that the museum shall have the right to hire and discharge employees, provided, however, that existing contracts that have been made by the city under Section 2484, municipal code, should be carried out and Sections 197 and 198 of the charter of the City of Cleveland shall apply to the agreement.

Sections 197 and 198 of the charter provide that all contracts for public works shall stipulate that the contractor shall pay wages which are not less than those paid by the City of Cleveland for like work but if there be no established rate for such class of work then the wages shall not be less than paid by others employing men in like services and in no case shall the wages paid be less than $4.50 for eight hours and provided further against discrimination against citizens because of race, color, religion or national origin.

Section 198 provides that no person employed by either a contractor or sub-contractor on public work of or for the city, shall be paid less than $4.50 per day of eight hours and that no contract shall be entered into unless it so provides.

The contract further- provided that the museum should make provision to place the mayor, the director of public property and the president of the city council of the city, or, in the event of such offices being abolished, then the persons occupying corresponding positions, on the board of trustees of the museum and also the museum shall create a committee of which the director of public property shall be a member, which committee shall “give active attention to the operation and development of the Brook- *424 side Zooiogical Garden so as to arouse and maintain increased public: interest therein;” that upon the expiration of the present agreements for the operation of concessions, the museum shall conduct such concessions and the net profit used in the development, and management of the zoo; that the museum shall pay all the cost of electricity, water, sewage disposal, telephones and make ail necessary repairs but shall not be responsible for the making of repairs made necessary by lightning, fire, windstorm or like causes; that the museum shall make annual reports covering its operation of the Zoological Garden, which shall include recommendations for capital expenditures with the right to request the council of the City of Cleveland to appropriate additional funds for such purpose; that the report is also to include a detailed report of receipts and expenditures; that the city will pay the museum $50,000.00 per year for such services in equal monthly installments- and also police the grounds, care for the roads and landscaping and the like; that the agreement shall operate from October 1, 1940, until terminated upon six months written notice given by one party to the other or after ten days notice to the city by the-museum of the museum’s desire to terminate the agreement because of the failure of the city to make the monthly payment.

The plaintiff’s appeal upon law contends:

1. That the contract is ultra vires because the operation of the zoo is a governmental function and the duties necessary for its: operation cannot be delegated to third persons.

2. That the contract is void because it was entered'into upon, the authority of -a resolution which was passed as an emergency measure, when in fact none of the prerequisites for an emergency measure existed.

3. That the contract by reason of Section 108 of the city-charter should have been authorized by ordinance and not by resolution.

4.

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

Related

City of Kenai v. Friends of the Recreation Center, Inc.
129 P.3d 452 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2006)
Persons v. City of Fort Worth
790 S.W.2d 865 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
State Ex Rel. Allerton Parking Corp. v. City of Cleveland
211 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1965)
Eikenbary v. City of Dayton
210 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1964)
O'Bryan v. City of Louisville
382 S.W.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1964)
Abbot Kinney Co. v. City of Los Angeles
223 Cal. App. 2d 668 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Hiller v. City of Los Angeles
197 Cal. App. 2d 685 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
City of Tulsa v. Williamson
1954 OK 290 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1954)
Hordin v. City of Cleveland
62 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.E.2d 207, 71 Ohio App. 273, 38 Ohio Law. Abs. 421, 26 Ohio Op. 123, 1943 Ohio App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cleveland-v-lausche-ohioctapp-1943.