Bd. Of Commissioners v. Whisler, 11645
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | BY THE COURT. |
| Citation | 82 Ohio St. 234,92 N.E. 21 |
| Parties | The Joint Board Of County Commissioners Et Al. v. Whisler Et Al. |
| Docket Number | 11645 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1910 |
92 N.E. 21
82 Ohio St. 234
The Joint Board Of County Commissioners Et Al.
v.
Whisler Et Al.
No. 11645
Supreme Court of Ohio
May 3, 1910
Appeal from county commissioners - To probate court by property owners - In ditch proceedings - Burden of proof on petitioners.
Upon an appeal from the decision of the county commissioners to the probate court by the owners of property to be taken for a ditch, the burden continues to be upon the petitioners to show that the proposed ditch will be conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare.
The facts are stated in the opinion. [82 Ohio St. 235]
Mr. J. W. Smith and Mr. B. A. Unverferth, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. G. W. Risser and Mr. W. H. Handy, for defendants in error.
BY THE COURT.
The plaintiffs in error are the joint board of commissioners of the counties of Putnam and Allen, and the petitioners for the establishment and construction of a ditch. The defendants in error are persons whose property it was proposed to take for the construction of the ditch. The case having been determined by the commissioners in favor of the petitioners, the owners took an appeal under the statute to the probate court, the appeal involving the question whether the proposed ditch will be conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare. The owners of the property were called the plaintiffs and the probate judge instructed the jury that upon the question just stated the burden was upon them to prove that the ditch would not be so conducive. For giving that instruction the court of common pleas reversed the judgment of the probate court upon a petition in error there filed by the owners, and the judgment of reversal rendered by the court of common pleas was affirmed in the circuit court. For reasons which are elementary and obvious the instruction was erroneous. The general rule is that the burden is upon him who asserts the affirmative, and the affirmative proposition that the proposed ditch will be conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare was encountered at the threshold of the [82 Ohio St. 236] case. The rule that the burden of proof is upon him who asserts the affirmative applies with especial force in a case of this character because the question stated involved the constitutional right of the public to take the property of the defendants in error.
It is true, as suggested by counsel for plaintiff in error, that Section 4464, Revised Statutes, provides that in such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hupp v. Beck Energy Corp., s. 12 MO 6
...13MO11, XTO's appeal is moot.“As a general rule, courts will not resolve issues that are moot. See Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21. ‘The doctrine of mootness is rooted both in the “case” or “controversy” language of Section 2, Article III of the United States Constitution ......
-
Napier v. Ickes, 2018 CA 00081
...which renders it impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition in error." Miner v. Witt , 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; Tschantz v. Ferguson , 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991).{¶87} In Bradley v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services......
-
Cyran v. Cyran, s. 2016–1737
...of courts is to " ‘decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect.’ " Miner v. Witt , 82 Ohio St. 237, 238, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), quoting Mills v. Green , 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895). Further, this court has made it clear that courts have a ......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...** declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 238, 92 N.E. 21 (1910); accord Fortner, 22 Ohio St.2d at 14. Consequently, when a "case in controversy" is lacking, the case is moot and "'there will be no a......
-
Hupp v. Beck Energy Corp., Nos. 12 MO 6
...13MO11, XTO's appeal is moot.“As a general rule, courts will not resolve issues that are moot. See Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21. ‘The doctrine of mootness is rooted both in the “case” or “controversy” language of Section 2, Article III of the United States Constitution ......
-
Napier v. Ickes, No. 2018 CA 00081
...which renders it impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition in error." Miner v. Witt , 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; Tschantz v. Ferguson , 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991).{¶87} In Bradley v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services......
-
Cyran v. Cyran, Nos. 2016–1737
...of courts is to " ‘decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect.’ " Miner v. Witt , 82 Ohio St. 237, 238, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), quoting Mills v. Green , 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895). Further, this court has made it clear that courts have a ......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...** declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 238, 92 N.E. 21 (1910); accord Fortner, 22 Ohio St.2d at 14. Consequently, when a "case in controversy" is lacking, the case is moot and "'there will be no a......