Hill v. Higdon
Ohio Supreme Court
In Error to the District Court of Hamilton county. The facts in this case are the following : Hill was the owner of a lot of ground at the south-west corner of Seventh and Plum streets, in the city of Cincinnati, fronting fifty-one feet on Seventh.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of Hamilton county. The facts in this case are the following : Hill was the owner of a lot of ground at the south-west corner of Seventh and Plum streets, in the city of Cincinnati, fronting fifty-one feet on Seventh. On the 19th of September, 1851, the city council passed an ordinance to re-grade and pave Seventh street, between Plum and Western Row, and to assess the expense of so doing, according to the provisions of the act of March 20th, 1850, “ further to amend the charter of the city of Cincinnati,” and of the general ordinance of June 12th, 1850, upon…
1Opinion of the CourtRanney, C. J.
The real question upon which the parties are at issue, and which has been fully argued, is this : Can laws, authorizing the corporate authorities of cities and villages to levy a special assessment upon property particularly benefited, for the purpose of improving streets, continue' in force, or be now passed, consistently with the present constitution of the State ?
Upon this question, involved in several other cases before us, as well as in this, the court have bestowed the most careful attention, and I now proceed to state the conclusion to which they have arrived. The subject is very…
2Cited by60 opinions
- Palmer v. StumphIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
- State Ex Rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- Smith v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- City of Newton v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- City of St. Louis ex rel. Seibert v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.