Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Village of Upper Sandusky v. Snyder

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1935No. 25109PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The only question raised by the demurrer is whether or not the legislation passed by council calling an election to determine whether bonds should be issued for the purpose of “acquiring or constructing waterworks” voiced a dual purpose. If not, the clerk of the municipality could not legally refuse to sign the anticipatory note, and a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue. We will therefore inquire whether or not the words “acquiring or constructing” express a double purpose.

There are some cases in Ohio relating to the subject of inquiry, but before considering them it will prove somewhat…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. City of Albuquerque v. Water Supply Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
  2. State ex rel. City of Columbia v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  3. Simpson v. City of NacogdochesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
  4. Thomas v. City of Grand JunctionColorado Court of Appeals · 1899
  5. Truelsen v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Keokuk Waterworks Co. v. KeokukSupreme Court of Iowa · 1938
  2. Ollilo v. Clatskanie Peoples' Utility DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Abbott v. Iowa CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1938
  4. Property Owners, Inc. v. City of AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API