Walcutt v. Columbus

Ohio Circuit Courts

Walcutt v. Columbus

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 238

DecidedFebruary 20, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 238 (Walcutt v. Columbus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walcutt v. Columbus, 17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 238 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTERS, J.

The resolutions passed by. the city council April 13, 1903, and April 27, 1903, were of such character that they fall within the provisions of original Sec. 1545-91 (repealed 96 O. L. 96; see Lan. R. L. 3107; B. 1536-626), where it is provided that a resolution “involving an expenditure of money” or “creating a right” “shall, before it takes effect be presented, duly certified by the clerk, to the mayor of the city, for approval.”

These resolutions were not approved by the mayor, and therefore never took effect.

[239]*239The director of law was not bound by any direction to him contained in those resolutions, nqr was the court below. It became and was the duty of the director of law, when the motion for judgment together with the resolutions, were presented to the court, to notify it of the invalidity of such acts upon which the request for judgment was predicated.

Where the contract, out of which the claim arose, was entered into prior to the passage of the act requiring the mayor’s approval, and a dispute arises as to the amount due, the defendant asserting that nothing is due, and where as part consideration for the agreement of compromise, it was inserted therein, ‘ ‘ That as the case had already cost the city of Columbus several thousand dollars in costs and attorneys’ fees, and if not settled is likely to cost many thousands of dollars more,” the. plaintiff has no such vested right under his contract, which forbids the application of the act, subsequently passed requiring the mayor’s approval.

Judgment affirmed.

Dustin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

WALTERS, J.

The resolutions passed by. the city council April 13, 1903, and April 27, 1903, were of such character that they fall within the provisions of original Sec. 1545-91 (repealed 96 O. L. 96; see Lan. R. L. 3107; B. 1536-626), where it is provided that a resolution “involving an expenditure of money” or “creating a right” “shall, before it takes effect be presented, duly certified by the clerk, to the mayor of the city, for approval.”

These resolutions were not approved by the mayor, and therefore never took effect.

[239]*239The director of law was not bound by any direction to him contained in those resolutions, nqr was the court below. It became and was the duty of the director of law, when the motion for judgment together with the resolutions, were presented to the court, to notify it of the invalidity of such acts upon which the request for judgment was predicated.

Where the contract, out of which the claim arose, was entered into prior to the passage of the act requiring the mayor’s approval, and a dispute arises as to the amount due, the defendant asserting that nothing is due, and where as part consideration for the agreement of compromise, it was inserted therein, ‘ ‘ That as the case had already cost the city of Columbus several thousand dollars in costs and attorneys’ fees, and if not settled is likely to cost many thousands of dollars more,” the. plaintiff has no such vested right under his contract, which forbids the application of the act, subsequently passed requiring the mayor’s approval.

Judgment affirmed.

Dustin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walcutt-v-columbus-ohiocirct-1905.