Fenner v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Fenner v. City of Cincinnati

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 567

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1901

DocketNo. 7473

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 567 (Fenner v. City of Cincinnati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fenner v. City of Cincinnati, 65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 567 (Ohio 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

On consideration whereof this court being of opinion that the act of April 26,1898, entitled “an act sup[568]*568plementary to section 2293, of the Revised Statutes of Ohio” (93 O. L., 374), is unconstitutional, and that the superior court at general term erred in reversing the judgment of that court in special term. It is ordered and adjudged that on the ground above stated the judgment of said superior court at general term be, and the same is hereby reversed. And proceeding to render the judgment which said court at general term should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that the said judgment of said court at special term be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed.

Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur. Minshall, C. J., and Williams, J., dissent.

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

On consideration whereof this court being of opinion that the act of April 26,1898, entitled “an act sup[568]*568plementary to section 2293, of the Revised Statutes of Ohio” (93 O. L., 374), is unconstitutional, and that the superior court at general term erred in reversing the judgment of that court in special term. It is ordered and adjudged that on the ground above stated the judgment of said superior court at general term be, and the same is hereby reversed. And proceeding to render the judgment which said court at general term should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that the said judgment of said court at special term be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed.

Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur. Minshall, C. J., and Williams, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenner-v-city-of-cincinnati-ohio-1901.