Brannon v. City of Wilmington
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
We are aware of the line of cases holding that “when the penalty prescribed in the ordiance is in excess of that authorized by the charter, the ordinance is not void, and the penalty may be enforced to the extent that it does not exceed the lawful limit.” 19 R. C. L. page 812, title “Municipal Corporations,” section 17. But we are of the opinion that the ordinance in question, which provides for a penalty as high as $1000. is so in conflict with the express provisions of section 3628 of the General Code as to be void. Petersburg v. Metzger, 21 Ill. 205. New Orleans v. Costello, 14 La. Ann.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MaletskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Greene v. Mayor of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- In re Van TuylSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- City of Assaria v. WellsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Town of Petersburg v. MetzkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Continental Oil Co. v. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1932
- Evans v. Youngstown (city)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1929
- In re BrownOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
- Lorain City v. PetraliaOhio Court of Appeals · 1929