State v. Cincin. Trac. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Cincin. Trac. Co.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1924

DocketNo. 18632

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645 (State v. Cincin. Trac. Co.) 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 v. Cincin. Trac. Co., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Epitomized Statement

Action commenced in Elamilton Common Pleas, by plaintiff, the State ex rel Alcorn, (as a taxpayer) to collect certain taxes claimed to be due from defendants, Cincinnati Traction Co. and 'Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.’s, to Cincinnati. Plaintiff demanded a trial by jury. The court refused this demand and tried the case without a jury and found for defendant. The Court of Appeals overruled the Common Pleas, but found that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground this is not a ease in which a taxpayer can maintain an action, even though the city solicitor had refused to bring the action' after a demand in writing.

Plaintiff claims error on the ground that, while this action is not included in those specified in 4314 GC. (which provides for the bringing of certain actions by a taxpayer) such actions are permitted in many cases becaues no other remedy can be had. The Court of Appeals held that these exceptions were made only in certain equity cases, and not in actions for money only.

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

Epitomized Statement

Action commenced in Elamilton Common Pleas, by plaintiff, the State ex rel Alcorn, (as a taxpayer) to collect certain taxes claimed to be due from defendants, Cincinnati Traction Co. and 'Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.’s, to Cincinnati. Plaintiff demanded a trial by jury. The court refused this demand and tried the case without a jury and found for defendant. The Court of Appeals overruled the Common Pleas, but found that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground this is not a ease in which a taxpayer can maintain an action, even though the city solicitor had refused to bring the action' after a demand in writing.

Plaintiff claims error on the ground that, while this action is not included in those specified in 4314 GC. (which provides for the bringing of certain actions by a taxpayer) such actions are permitted in many cases becaues no other remedy can be had. The Court of Appeals held that these exceptions were made only in certain equity cases, and not in actions for money only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cincin-trac-co-ohio-1924.