Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 184
    No. 20022
    No. 20023
    No. 20024
    Antoinette V. Schick v. City of Cincinnati et al. Rose F. Imbus v. City of Cincinnati et al. Lilly Hull v. City of Cincinnati, et al.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of. Hamilton county.
    323. COURTS — Supreme Court does not render declaratory judgments, and unless a party has properly presented a law question appearing upon face of record, it will not pass upon one which might have arisen.
    1104. STATUTES — Statutes relating to time and manner of executing power or jurisdiction vested in a public officer, may be construed as directory, unless negative words require otherwise.
    103. ASSESSMENTS — Failure of officer to have property owner’s claim for damages adjudicated within 10 days, as provided in 3829 GC. does not invalidate an assessment, but suspends right to collect.
   DAY, J.

1. Statutes which relate to the manner or time in which power or jurisdiction vested in a public officer is to be exercised, and not to the limits of the power or jurisdiction itself, may be construed to be directory unless accompanied by negative words importing that the act required shall not be done in any other manner or time than that designated.

2. Where a municipality has improved a street by widening, paving, curbing, etc., failure of the mayor or solicitor to have a property owner’s claim for damages adjudicated within ten days after the completion of the improvement as provided in Section 3829, General Code, does not invalidate an assessment levjed for making said improvement, but merely operates to suspend the right of the city to collect said assessment until such adjudication is made.

3. This court does not render declaratory judgments, and unless a party to an action by taking proper steps has availed himself of his rights to present a law question upon the face of the record, this court will not pass upon a question that might have arisen had he so done.

Judgments affirmed.

Marshall, CJ., Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.