City of Columbus v. Sohl

• Decision Date: 19 October 1886
• Parties: CITY OF COLUMBUS v. SOHL.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

8 N.E. 299

44 Ohio St. 479

CITY OF COLUMBUS v. SOHL.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

October 19, 1886

Error to circuit court, Franklin county.

This case was one of a class that was before this court in Tone v. Columbus , 39 Ohio St. 281. It was brought to enjoin the collection of an assessment that had been made upon certain property of Sohl fronting upon North High street, Columbus; the assessment having been made for the improvement of the street under the provision of an act passed March 30, 1875, (72 Ohio L. 153.) This act was held invalid in State v. Mitchell , 31 Ohio St 592, but, notwithstanding its invalidity, the court there also held that when the abutting lot-owners had caused a street to be improved under the act, and the bonds of the city to be negotiated to pay for the improvement, all who had participated in causing the improvement to be made, were estopped from denying the validity of an assessment made in accordance with the act to pay such bonds. After the decision in the Tone Case issues were made up in the courts below, upon which it, with others, including the present one was referred to a master, with directions to take the evidence, and report his conclusions of law and fact separately to the court. Upon the issues as made the principal question was as to whether two-thirds of the owners of the frontage upon the street had petitioned the council of the city for the benefits of the act before the passage of the ordinance ordaining the improvement to be made, and the issuing of the bonds of the city in payment of the same; and this turned upon the further question as to whether an agent could act for an owner in petitioning for the improvement and, if so, whether, in such case, the petition could be signed by the agent without indicating his agency in the petition; and also whether a subsequent ratification by on owner should be held as equivalent to a previous authority when done before the improvement was ordered, and the issuing of the bonds of the city. In all such cases the master held, upon the facts reported by him, and about which there is no dispute, that the owners should be counted as petitioners, and that, including owners who had so signed by agent, the requisite ownership of the frontage upon the street had been obtained to warrant the assessment made on the property of the defendant in error for the cost of the improvement. The circuit court reversed the conclusions of the master in this regard, and rendered judgment for the defendant in error. This proceeding is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and for judgment upon the facts as found for the plaintiff in error.

James Caren , City Sol., Jones & Jones , and C. T. Clark , for plaintiff in error.

R. P. Woodruff , for defendant in error.

BY THE COURT.

We think the judgment of the circuit court in this case should be reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the city. The defendant in error, Sohl, petitioned for the benefits of the act, the making of the improvement under its provisions, and thereby, with the others acting with him, induced the city to negotiate its bonds to pay for the improvement. The general principles of estoppel were applied to this aspect of the case in State v. Mitchell , 31 Ohio St 592, but it is claimed that two-thirds of...