Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_7/html/0212-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ASSESSMENTS IN EXCESS OF BENEFITS.
    [Circuit Court of Hamilton County.]
    Frank L. Mechlem et al v. City of Cincinnati et al.
    Decided, November 14, 1905.
    
      Street — Assessment for Improvement of — Benefits—Finding as to, hy the Assessing Board. ■ *
    The fact that a court divides on the question whether property has been specially benefited in the amount of the assessment, does not afford' ground for disturbing the assessment in the absence of some of the'grounds usually invoking equitable intervention.
    Jelke, P. J.; Swing, J., concurs; Giffen, J., dissents.
    
      ¡A. W. Bruch, for plaintiff.
    
      Chas, J. Hunt, City Solicitor, contra.
   We said in the case of Benham v. City of Cincinnati, 4 C. C. — N. S., page 36:

“Where, however, the assessing board hias made a finding of benefits and has made the assessment on that basis, such finding and assessment are prima facie correct, and should not lightly be disturbed or inquired into in the absence of allegations of some of the grounds usually invoking equitable intervention.”

In the case at bar, this court is somewhat divided on the question as to whether or not the property has been specially benefited in the amount of the assessment. The very fact that the court can divide on this question, leads a majority of us to hold that the assessment as levied by the assessing board should be sustained. This court does not examine into the question of benefits as a matter of course, and does so only in cases where such inequality between benefits conferred and assessments levied invite equitable intervention. This being so, we are of opinion that the assessment in this case should be allowed to stand.

Judge Giffen dissents for the reason that' the evidence shows no good ground for repaving the street.