Case Name: Walter Armstrong v. The City of Cincinnati
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 5 Ohio 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: Walter Armstrong v. The City of Cincinnati.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 5
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
Walter Armstrong v. The City of Cincinnati.
■Compensation for damages for opening alleys in towns under town ordinances can not be sought in equity, nor relief granted against the collection of regular assessments.
This cause was adjourned here from the county of Hamilton. 'It was a bill in chancery, in which the complainant alleged that he ■ was owner of óne-half of lot No. 61, in the city of Cincinnati, being part of the block of lots situate between Third and Fourth and Main and Sycamore streets. The complainant, with other owners -of property in this block, united in petitioning that a twenty-foot .. alley should be opened between them from Third to Fourth street, and that the land should be equally appropriated from the east and west ends of the lots, except complainant, who was to be paid the full value of his ten feet, the residue to be paid for by • contribution.
That subsequent to this a second petition was agreed upon, and signed by all the parties except the complainant, praying for a ten-foot alley only, on the ordinary terms of mutual *contribution according to the advantage received. Under this petition the ten-foot alley was opened, and the whole ground taken from complainant. That the appraisers made a mistake and only appraised five feet, valuing it at eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents, and that afterward the assessor of contribution apportioned two hundred dollars and seventy-four cents upon complainant, for which suit had been brought before the mayor and judgment recovered, under the city ordinances, and process issued to sell the lot to make that sum. The bill prayed general relief and an injunction. The defendants demurred.
Morehead, for complainant.
Storer and Fox, for defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The object of the bill is not to enjoin opening the alley, but to -obtain a decree for compensation for alleged damages. In other words, to obtain all tho advantages of the alley and be paid into the bargain. This can not be a case for relief in equity. Whatever remedy the complainant may claim is to be obtained at law,: and is given by section 13 of the law of January 26, 1827, incorporating the city of Cincinnati.
The proceedings before the mayor to enforce the collection of" the assessment are regulated by the city ordinances. If irregular, the remedy for correcting them is at law, not in chancery. No special grounds making a'case of equitable jurisdiction is presented. Here no irregularity is complained of. The bill must be -• dismissed.