Case Name: State ex rel. Fenner v. Hamilton Co. (Comrs.)
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1900
Citations: 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 317
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. Fenner v. Hamilton Co. (Comrs.).
Judges: Smith, Swing and Giffen,JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 11
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
[Hamilton Circuit Court,
1900.]
Smith, Swing and Giffen,JJ.
State ex rel. Fenner v. Hamilton Co. (Comrs.).
1. Act 94 O. L., 725, is Unconstitutional.
The act 94 O. L-, 725, authorizing the county commissioners in a county containing a city of the first grade first class to issue bonds, not exceeding SI0,000, in amount, and to levy a tax to pay the interest and to provide for payment of the principal within a period of ten years, for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and repair of any levee or bridge i'pproach used as a highway in such county, the subj'ect matter being of a general nature, is unconstitutional, as lacking uniform operation.
2. That it Does not Designate Levee or Bridge Approach Immaterial.
The fact that the law in question does not specifically point out what levee, used as a road or bridge approach, is to be improved or repaired by the money realized from a sale of the bonds is not material; the act still remains local.
K. G. Kinkead and H. K. Rogers;
Wilson, Cosgrave & Jones.
Injunction.
The question for determination in this case was the constitutionality of the act iound in 94 O. L., 725, authorizing the commissioners in a county containing a city oi the first grade of the first class to issue bond.» 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 imp~ovement and repair of any levee or bridge approach used as a highway in any such county.

Opinion:
Swing, J.
We are unable to distinguish this case from the cases of Hixson v. Burnson, 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 to he 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.