Shiner v. Norwood
Hamilton Circuit Court
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. A resolution was passed by the Norwood council in 1891, without petition from abutting owners, for improvement of Williams avenue. At that time W. M. Fridman owned a lot abutting 111 feet on Williams avenue and 214 feet on Flsmere avenue. The Fridman tract was subsequently subdivided into four lots fronting on Flsmere avenue, which were all sold to different parties.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. A resolution was passed by the Norwood council in 1891, without petition from abutting owners, for improvement of Williams avenue. At that time W. M. Fridman owned a lot abutting 111 feet on Williams avenue and 214 feet on Flsmere avenue. The Fridman tract was subsequently subdivided into four lots fronting on Flsmere avenue, which were all sold to different parties. This left only one of the four lots, the one in the corner, abutting on Williams avenue, and the assessment which it was originally intended should ^all upon the entire…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.,
holds that the whole Fridman tract was liable to be assessed for the improvement of Williams avenue — that is under the decision in Douglass v. Cincinnati, 29 Ohio St., 161, the property liable for this assessment was determined by its status at the time of the passage of the ordinance directing the improvement, and the liability thus attaching is not affected by subsequent conveyances and changes in the title. The better course, therefore, would have been for the village to have placed the assessment on all four of the lots constituting the original tract instead of selecting, one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Werden v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1876