Mulcahy v. City of Akron

Ohio Supreme Court

Mulcahy v. City of Akron

146 N.E. 316, 111 Ohio St. 836, 111 Ohio St. (N.S.) 836, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 659, 1924 Ohio LEXIS 260

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1924

Docket18704

StatusPublished

This text of 146 N.E. 316 (Mulcahy v. City of Akron) 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

Mulcahy v. City of Akron, 146 N.E. 316, 111 Ohio St. 836, 111 Ohio St. (N.S.) 836, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 659, 1924 Ohio LEXIS 260 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by thi-s court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that the record in this cause was ordered certified by this court under a misapprehension that it involved the question whether, in the matter of letting public contract where the provisions of a charter of a chartered city are in conflict with the statute applicable thereto, the provisions of the charter supersede the provisions of the statutes. The record disclosing that no provision of the statutes pertaining to the letting of public contract has been violated, there was no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, whatever reasons it may have assigned for such judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Conn, JJ., concur.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by thi-s court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that the record in this cause was ordered certified by this court under a misapprehension that it involved the question whether, in the matter of letting public contract where the provisions of a charter of a chartered city are in conflict with the statute applicable thereto, the provisions of the charter supersede the provisions of the statutes. The record disclosing that no provision of the statutes pertaining to the letting of public contract has been violated, there was no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, whatever reasons it may have assigned for such judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Conn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 N.E. 316, 111 Ohio St. 836, 111 Ohio St. (N.S.) 836, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 659, 1924 Ohio LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulcahy-v-city-of-akron-ohio-1924.