Meek v. Collinwood (Vil.)

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 63
CourtCuyahoga Circuit Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1906
StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 63 (Meek v. Collinwood (Vil.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meek v. Collinwood (Vil.), 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 63 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1906).

Opinion

MARVIN, J.

This is a suit brought by Fannie Meek against the village of Collin-wood and its treasurer to restrain the collection of an assessment made upon the property owned by the. plaintiff. It comes here on appeal from the judgment of the court of common pleas.

[64]*64The facts are, that Fannie Meek owned, or did own, a lot in the ■village of Collinwood, abutting on Kirby avenue; that the village or the -council of the village passed a resolution to construct a sidewalk on Kirby avenué, from Adams avenue to Elm street in the village of Col-linwood., The specifications appear here in the general statement of facts and provide that a sidewalk shall be constructed on that street, to be of sandstone, sawed on both sides, and to be five feet in width and two and one-half inches thick, laid to the proper grade and six inches from the lot line. That resolution was passed on March 23,. 1903, and thereafter a notice was served upon each of the property owners who resided in the village or the county, and published to the nonresidents. 'This plaintiff was a resident of the village of Collinwood and received this notice, or the notice which was directed to be served and was delivered to the proper officer of the village, notifying the plaintiff of the passage of the resolution, and the notice containing the following:

“Mayor’s Office, Collinwood, Ohio.
“June 10, 1903.
“To Fanny Meek:
“You are hereby notified that according to .the provisions of a resolution passed by the council on the eleventh day of May, 1903, you are required to construct a sidewalk in front of your premises on the southerly side of Kirby avenue between Adams street and Elm street, known as No.-on said street. Said sidewalk to conform to the following specifications: To be of sandstone sawed on both sides, to be five feet wide, two and one-half inches in thickness and laid six inches from the lot line, and to be constructed in accordance with the general ordinances of the village pertaining to sidewalks.
“If said sidewalk is not constructed within thirty days from receipt "of this notice, the council will have the same done at your expense, and the costs will be made a lien upon your property and collected with penalty and interest as provided by law. ’ ’ And then follows the indorsement by the clerk.

The notice, as already said, contained-a copy of the resolution that upon the failure of the property owners to construct the sidewalk the village would proceed to construct the sidewalk and assess the expense thereof upon the property owners; that is, the proper amount of such assessment upon each property owner.

The plaintiff did not construct the sidewalk. The village did construct a sidewalk at this point in front of the premises of the plaintiff, nearly a year after the. passage of the resolution. At the time this sidewalk was constructed, this plaintiff was absent from the village and knew nothing of its being done, until after the work was completed.

[65]*65As a matter of fact, the sidewalk which the village constructed was constructed of cement and not of sandstone. And the agreed statement of facts contains these words: “A cement sidewalk is of a different material than sandstone'; it is a mixture of cement, sand and gravel.” And then it tells what sandstone is. And the cost of said cement sidewalk is substantially the same as the cost of the standstone.

The plaintiff failed to pay the assessment which was certified as a lien upon her property to the county treasurer of Cuyahoga county, who, but being enjoined, will proceed to collect the amount of that assessment.

It is said, first, the village could not lawfully construct a sidewalk and have it assessed upon the property owner under the proceedings that were had in this case. And attention is called to Lan. 3600 (B. 1536-210), which is Sec. 50 of the municipal code, which provides that—

“The council of any municipal corporation may assess upon the abutting, adjacent and contiguous or other specially benefited lots or lands in the corporation, any part of the entire cost of, and expense connected with, the improvement of any .street, alley, dock, wharf, pier, public road or place by grading, draining, curbing, paving,” etc., and any part of the cost and labor by a percentage of the tax value of the property assessed, in proportion to the benefits which may result from the improvement, or by the foot frontage of the property.

And by Lan. 3602 (B. 1536-211) :

“Whenever it is deemed necessary by any city or village, to make any public improvement to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessments council shall declare by resolution (three-fourths of the whole number elected thereto concurring, except as otherwise provided herein) the necessity of such improvement. At the time of the passage of said resolution council shall have on file in the office of the board of public service in cities, and of the clerk in villages, plans, specifications, estimates and profiles of the proposed improvement, showing the proposed grade of the street and improvement after completion, with reference to the property abutting thereon, which plans, specifications, estimates and profiles shall be open to the inspection of all persons interested. ’ ’

And then it states that council shall also determine in said resolution the method of the assessment, the mode of-payment thereof, etc.

It will be observed that the proceedings here were not in conformity with these sections of the statute. But there is a «further provision in the statute with reference to sidewalks. Beginning with Lan. 3621 (B. [66]*661536-232), which is Sec. 70 of the municipal code (96 O. L. 45), as published in Ellis’s work:

“The council of cities and villages may provide by ordinance for the construction and repair of all necessary sidewalks, or parts thereof, within the limits of the corporation, ’ ’ etc. °And then it provides:
“When the council of cities or villages declares by resolution that certain 'specified sidewalks shall be constructed, the clerk of council shall cause a written notice of the passage of such resolution to be served upon the owner or agent of the owner of each parcel of land1 abutting on such sidewalk, who may be a resident of such city or village, ’’ etc.

And in Lan. 3624 (B. 1536-235), it is provided that—

“If such sidewalks * * * are not constructed within fifteen days * * * from the service of the notice, * * * the department of public service in cities and council in villages may do or have the same done at the expense of the owner,” etc.

And I call attention especially to the last provision of Lan. 3624 (B. 1536-235), which is Sec. 73 of the code:

“No other or further proceedings * * # shall be necessary * * * by council proceedings, ” etc.

It is said that notwithstanding that provision it was still necessary before the council of the village or the board of public service in the city may assess upon the property owner the cost of constructing the-sidewalk, that there shall have been an ordinance passed, and that there shall have been the plans and specifications on file, as provided in Lan. 3600 (B. 1536-210).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-collinwood-vil-ohcirctcuyahoga-1906.