Case Name: E. J. Barney v. Dayton (City)
Court: Montgomery Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1894-06
Citations: 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. J. Barney v. Dayton (City).
Judges: Stewart, Shauck and Shearer, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 4
Pages: 505–505

Head Matter:
CORNER LOT ASSESSMENTS. -
[Montgomery Circuit Court,
June Term, 1894.]
Stewart, Shauck and Shearer, JJ.
E. J. Barney v. Dayton (City).
A Corner Dot May Have Two Fronts.
If the improvements on a corner lot contain gates opening on each street, the lot fronts and may he assessed for improvements on both streets.
On Appear from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county.
Gottschcd & Brown, McMahon & McMahon, Patterson & Murphy,, Emmanuel & Dwyer, John M. Sprigg, for plaintiff.
William Craighead and Frank Conover, city solicitors.

Opinion:
Shearer, J.
In this and eight other cases, submitted on appeal, in which injunctions are sought restraining the city of Dayton from enforcing certain street assessments made under the special act governing street improvements in said city, etc., which act, so far as the questions herein are concerned, does not materially differ from the general law, we hold:
1. That when a lot is bounded breadthwise by a street and lengthwise by another street, and the improvements thereon contain gates opening upon each street intended to be, and which are or may be, used for ingress and egress to and from such buildings, -such lot "fronts" upon both streets
2. In such case, where each of such streets is improved, assessments may be made upon such lot for the number of feet such lot abuts upon, or is bounded by, such improvements, respectively. .
3. Where, as in Stout's case, the lot abuts lengthwise upon an improvement, but is separated from such improvement by a continuous fence, without gates or other openings, or means of passing through or over the same, such lot does not "front" upon the improvement: and an assessment thereon for any portion of the cost of said improvement, in excess of the number of feet breadthwise,, is illegal.
4. Haviland's case, 50 O. S., 481, does not hold that a lot may not have cwofronts, and we are unwilling to extend it beyond its strict and necessary purview.
5. "Abounding" in the Dayton act means "bounding" or "bounded by."' "Bound" is synonymous with "limit" or "border." The definitions of "abounding," as claimed by counsel,' demonstrate that that word was not intended by the legislature. The a must be rejected. "Abut" means the same as "bound" — that is "to terminate or border; to be contiguous; to meet."
In view of the foregoing, all the cases will be dismissed at the costs of the respective plaintiffs, excepting Stout's case, wherein the enforcement of the assessment will be enjoined as to all in excess of the number of feet embraced in the Second street or breadthwise front. And in the Babbitt and Weakley cases the collection of the assessments in excess of twenty-five per centum upon the valuation for taxation will be enjoined.