Hastings v. Columbus
Ohio Supreme Court
Appeals from tbe Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county. Reserved in the District Court. January 29, 1876, J. L. Hastings and others, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Franklin county, against the city of Columbus, Francis Wenger, Henry T. Chittenden and others.
Read the full summary
Appeals from tbe Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county. Reserved in the District Court. January 29, 1876, J. L. Hastings and others, brought suit in the court of common pleas of Franklin county, against the city of Columbus, Francis Wenger, Henry T. Chittenden and others. The object of the action was to recover, as contractors, the amount of an assessment for a Parisen patent asphalt pavement, placed by them on High street, Columbus, Ohio, from Naghten street to a point 125 feet south of Friend street. The defendants, other than the city, were owners of lots abutting on High street, and…
1Opinion of the CourtOkey, J.
I. The record discloses the fact, and the alleged error is insisted upon by the defendants, that in the Town *588street case, the preliminary ordinance declaring the improvement to be necessary, was published in tbe Sunday Morning Mews, a newspaper published and circulated in Columbus on Sunday only, and that the notice was published in no other newspajier. The master finds that newspaper was at the time of general circulation in Columbus. It also appears that in the High street case, the ordinance providing for the improvement, and the assessment ordinance for one section of that improvement,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sayles v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Scammon v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Smith v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Shaw v. WilliamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Field v. ParkNew York Supreme Court · 1822
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.