State ex rel. Ellis v. Blakemore

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Ellis v. Blakemore

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1927

DocketNo. 20457

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365 (State ex rel. Ellis v. Blakemore) 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. Ellis v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

MATTHIAS, J.

1. Where a municipal ordinance has received sufficient votes of council to duly enact same, and that fact is evidenced by the record of the proceedings of the council, although it is there erroneously stated that such ordinance failed of passage, it is the duty of the presiding officer and clerk of the council to authenticate and of the latter to record the same which may be enforced by writ of mandamus.

2. A board of county commissioners is authorized by the provisions of Sections 2421, 6949 and 7557 General Code, to construct a bridge or viaduct as a part of a road improvement into, within or through a municipality in such county upon the consent of the council thereof, and where no part of the expense of such improvement is assumed by the municipality such requirement of consent is_ fully met by the affirmative vote of a majority of the duly elected members of the council for the passage of an ordinance granting such consent.

3. Neither the provisions of the charter of the city of Cincinnati nor the provisions of Section 4366-2, General Code, relative to the powers of a city planning commission have any application to the erection of a bridge or viaduct on an inter-county or main market road.

Writ allowed.

Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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

MATTHIAS, J.

1. Where a municipal ordinance has received sufficient votes of council to duly enact same, and that fact is evidenced by the record of the proceedings of the council, although it is there erroneously stated that such ordinance failed of passage, it is the duty of the presiding officer and clerk of the council to authenticate and of the latter to record the same which may be enforced by writ of mandamus.

2. A board of county commissioners is authorized by the provisions of Sections 2421, 6949 and 7557 General Code, to construct a bridge or viaduct as a part of a road improvement into, within or through a municipality in such county upon the consent of the council thereof, and where no part of the expense of such improvement is assumed by the municipality such requirement of consent is_ fully met by the affirmative vote of a majority of the duly elected members of the council for the passage of an ordinance granting such consent.

3. Neither the provisions of the charter of the city of Cincinnati nor the provisions of Section 4366-2, General Code, relative to the powers of a city planning commission have any application to the erection of a bridge or viaduct on an inter-county or main market road.

Writ allowed.

Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ellis-v-blakemore-ohio-1927.