Shroder v. Overmann

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Shroder v. Overmann

5 Ohio N.P. 392

CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

DecidedJanuary 15, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio N.P. 392 (Shroder v. Overmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shroder v. Overmann, 5 Ohio N.P. 392 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCHWALTER, J.

Much as I dislike to encourage any tendency to laxity in the observance of the safeguards sought to be put around public improvements, yet I hold that the statutes authorize a suspension of the rule requiring ordinances to be read the second and third time as well as on three different days, and I therefore hold that the demurrer to the third and fourth defenses set up in the petition, is well taken, and do therefore sustain the same.

As to the sixth, defense the plaintiff pleads that the street was constructed in an imperfect and unworkmanlike manner, and had slipped (the material got on the plaintiff’s lot). That the slip passed in to the plaintiff’s lot and damaged the same is only an incident. The damage to the lot is surplusage and is no defense, but the failure to make a street is a defense to the assessment if true.

’ The demurrer to this cause of action is overruled.

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

BUCHWALTER, J.

Much as I dislike to encourage any tendency to laxity in the observance of the safeguards sought to be put around public improvements, yet I hold that the statutes authorize a suspension of the rule requiring ordinances to be read the second and third time as well as on three different days, and I therefore hold that the demurrer to the third and fourth defenses set up in the petition, is well taken, and do therefore sustain the same.

As to the sixth, defense the plaintiff pleads that the street was constructed in an imperfect and unworkmanlike manner, and had slipped (the material got on the plaintiff’s lot). That the slip passed in to the plaintiff’s lot and damaged the same is only an incident. The damage to the lot is surplusage and is no defense, but the failure to make a street is a defense to the assessment if true.

’ The demurrer to this cause of action is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio N.P. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shroder-v-overmann-ohctcomplhamilt-1897.