Case ID: ohio-cc_20/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SWING, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(First Circuit—Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
    Oct. Term, 1900.)
    Before Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
    STATE ex rel. FENNER v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
    
      The union levee improvement act pronounced unconstitutional—
    The question for determination inthisoase was the constitutionality of the act found in 94 O. L., p. 726, authorizing the commissioners in a county containing a city of the first grade of the first class to issue bonds not to exceed $10,000, and to levy a tax to pay the interest and to provide for the payment of the principal of said bonds within a period of ten years, for the purpose of paying the cost and expense of the improvement and repair of any levee or bridge approaoh used as a highway in any such county.
    
      E. G. Kinkead and 3. K. Sogers; Wilson, Oosgrave & Jones.
    
   SWING, J.

We are unable to distinguish this case from the oases of Hixson v. Burson, 54 Ohio St., 470; State ex rel. v. Davis, 55 Ohio St., 15, and Mott v. Hubbard, 59 Ohio St., 199, and therefore feel bound to hold the act in question unconstitutional. The fact that the law in question does not specifically point out what levee used as a road or bridge approach is tobe improved or repaired by the money realized from the sale of bonds, it seems to us can make no difference. The act still remains local, and the subject of roads and bridge approaches is a matter of a general nature, as decided by the above cases.

Injunction allowed as prayed for.