Cincinnati v. Puchta, Mayor

• Decision Date: 01 July 1916
• Docket Number: 15266,15265
• Citation: 94 Ohio St. 431,115 N.E. 278
• Parties: City Of Cincinnati v. Puchta, Mayor, Et Al.; Puchta, Mayor, Et Al. v. City Of Cincinnati.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

115 N.E. 278

94 Ohio St. 431

City Of Cincinnati v. Puchta, Mayor, Et Al.; Puchta, Mayor, Et Al. v. City Of Cincinnati.

15265, 15266

Supreme Court of Ohio

July 1, 1916

Municipal corporations - Bonds for park purposes - Election thereon - Sections 4064 and 4065, General Code - Publication of notice - Section 3946, General Code - Limitation of municipal indebtedness - Section 3952, General Code.

Mr Charles A. Groom, city solicitor, for the city of Cincinnati.

Mr Saul Zielonka and Mr. John E. Bruce, for George Puchta mayor, et al. BY THE COURT.

Both cases involve this question: An election was held on the issue as to whether or not certain bonds should be issued for park purposes. Notice of such election was given to the qualified electors of the city of Cincinnati upon an advertisement for "four consecutive weeks in a newspaper printed in the municipality covering the period of 26 days prior to the day of election, to-wit, November 2, 1915." Did such notice legally comply with Section 3946, General Code? That section reads as follows:

"`Thirty days' notice of the election shall be given in one or more newspapers printed in the municipality once a week for four consecutive weeks prior thereto stating the amount of bonds to be issued, and the purpose for which they are to be issued, and the time and place of holding the election."

This notice was not published for thirty days, but was published once a week for four consecutive weeks.

We believe this publication to be in substantial compliance with the statute, especially when we conic to consider the last part of Section 3946, to-wit:

"If no newspaper is printed therein, the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place and published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the township or municipal corporation."

The chief purpose of this statute is evident, to-wit, four weekly publications. And these were made. We do not hold that in all cases such would be a sufficient compliance with the law, but in the absence of any allegation here that anybody was denied the right to vote, by reason of the statutes not being literally complied with for the full thirty days, the regularity of the election proceedings is upheld.

A second proposition involved in one, or both, of these cases is the question of limitation upon the amount of bonds.

The city council failed to issue bonds upon its own initiative. Thereupon, pursuant to Section 4064, General Code, the board of park commissioners took such action as was required by that section. The city council having failed to enact the necessary legislation, the board of park commissioners filed their resolution, and the favorable action thereon, with the board of deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections and the election was had thereon a majority of the voters voting at such election declaring in favor of the issuing of the bonds.

...