State ex rel. Smith v. Lewis

Hamilton Circuit Court

State ex rel. Smith v. Lewis

15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 703

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided July 1, 1904·Published

Opinion

JELKE, J.

We think the act of April 10, 1900, 94 O. L. 116, relating to the listing for taxation and sale of forfeited lands, is constitutional. We see no reason why the state cannot dispose of land which has been forfeited to the state and remains unsold for want of bidders on such terms as to the general assembly seem best for the purpose of getting such property-back upon the live taxpaying duplicate.

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

JELKE, J.

We think the act of April 10, 1900, 94 O. L. 116, relating to the listing for taxation and sale of forfeited lands, is constitutional. We see no reason why the state cannot dispose of land which has been forfeited to the state and remains unsold for want of bidders on such terms as to the general assembly seem best for the purpose of getting such property-back upon the live taxpaying duplicate.

State ex rel. Smith v. Lewis, 15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 703 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1904).

Pincite

15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 703 (State ex rel. Smith v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.