State ex rel. Cline v. Mackenzie

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Cline v. Mackenzie

80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 757

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1909

DocketNo. 11934

StatusPublished

This text of 80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 757 (State ex rel. Cline v. Mackenzie) 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

State ex rel. Cline v. Mackenzie, 80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 757 (Ohio 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed and judgment as stated in journal 'entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be and the same is hereby reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that the demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff herein be overruled, and, said defendant not desiring to plead further, it is considered and adjudged that said defendants be, and they hereby are, perpetually enjoined from proceeding with the performance of the alleged contract awarded to The King Bridge Company; said contract being hereby adjudged to be null and void, but said defendants are not enioined from awarding said contract to the lowest bidder, The McClintic-Marshall Construction Company.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur,

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

Judgment reversed and judgment as stated in journal 'entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be and the same is hereby reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that the demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff herein be overruled, and, said defendant not desiring to plead further, it is considered and adjudged that said defendants be, and they hereby are, perpetually enjoined from proceeding with the performance of the alleged contract awarded to The King Bridge Company; said contract being hereby adjudged to be null and void, but said defendants are not enioined from awarding said contract to the lowest bidder, The McClintic-Marshall Construction Company.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cline-v-mackenzie-ohio-1909.