Emmons v. Mong
This text of 17 Ohio Law. Abs. 289 (Emmons v. Mong) 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.
Opinion
[290]*290OPINION
The record herein discloses that the address of E. F. Emmons was readily available, that it was obtainable from the city directory, and that said Emmons had been a resident of the city of Akron for more than 13 years. No excuse for failure ro mail a notice to him is given, nor is it attempted to be shown that his address was not known.
It is our conclusion that, inasmuch as said V. D. and E. F. Emmons were joint owners of undivided interests in the property sought to be assessed, the notice given was not a compliance with the mandatory provisions of §6602-2, GC, and that, by reason thereof, the attempted assessment against the property in which they had the title at the time of the mailing of said notice, to-wit, June 20, 1928, was void.
We accordingly hold that, as to lots 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33, 34, 35, and 37 to 54, inclusive, and also as'to lots 11, 29 and 32, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction as prayed for, restraining the collection .of said assessment against said lots.
As to lots 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 28, 30 and 31, plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief, as prayed for in said petition.
Decree accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Ohio Law. Abs. 289, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmons-v-mong-ohioctapp-1934.