Mechlem v. Cincinnati (City)

Hamilton Circuit Court

Mechlem v. Cincinnati (City)

18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 211, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 212, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 452

DecidedNovember 14, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 211 (Mechlem v. Cincinnati (City)) 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

Mechlem v. Cincinnati (City), 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 211, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 212, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 452 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

JELKE, J.

We said in the case of Benham v. Cincinnati, 26 O. C. C. 17:

“Where, however, the assessing board has made a finding of benefits and has made the assessment on that basis, such finding and assessment are prima facie correct,, and should not lightly be disturbed or inquired into in the absence of allegations of some of the grounds usually invoking equitable intervention.”

In the case at bar, this court is somewhat divided on the question as to whether or not the property has been specially benefited in the amount of the assessment. The very fact that the court can divide on this question, leads a majority of us to hold that the assessment as levied by the assessing board should be sustained. This court does not examine into the question of benefits as a matter of course, and does so only in cases where such inequality between benefits conferred and assessments levied invite equitable intervention. This being so, we are of opinion that the assessment in this case should be allowed to stand.

Giffen, J., dissents, for the reason that the evidence shows no go.od ground for repaving the street. Swing, J., concurs.

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

JELKE, J.

We said in the case of Benham v. Cincinnati, 26 O. C. C. 17:

“Where, however, the assessing board has made a finding of benefits and has made the assessment on that basis, such finding and assessment are prima facie correct,, and should not lightly be disturbed or inquired into in the absence of allegations of some of the grounds usually invoking equitable intervention.”

In the case at bar, this court is somewhat divided on the question as to whether or not the property has been specially benefited in the amount of the assessment. The very fact that the court can divide on this question, leads a majority of us to hold that the assessment as levied by the assessing board should be sustained. This court does not examine into the question of benefits as a matter of course, and does so only in cases where such inequality between benefits conferred and assessments levied invite equitable intervention. This being so, we are of opinion that the assessment in this case should be allowed to stand.

Giffen, J., dissents, for the reason that the evidence shows no go.od ground for repaving the street. Swing, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 211, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 212, 1905 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mechlem-v-cincinnati-city-ohcircthamilton-1905.