Case Name: Daisy M. Scott and Annie Neil Scott v. The City of Columbus, Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-12-26
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 5
Docket Number: No. 18025
Parties: Daisy M. Scott and Annie Neil Scott v. The City of Columbus, Ohio.
Judges: 'Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
No. 2
SCOTT and SCOTT v. COLUMBUS (City)
No. 18025
Daisy M. Scott and Annie Neil Scott v. The City of Columbus, Ohio.
Error to Court of Appeals of Franklin county. See p. 4.
93. APPROPRIATION—Separate owners of separate tracts of land, entitled to appraisal separately, but may be waived—Appearing of separate owners in answer to application to appraise tracts as a whole, and offering no separate evidence as to value of the tracts until ¡¡iter jury assesses in a lump sum, is such a waiver.

Opinion:
ALLEN, J.
1. Under Section 19, Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution, and within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under Section 3687, General Code, the separate owners of separate tracts of land which are being sought in appropriation proceedings by a municipal corporation, are entitled to have their separate tracts of land assessed separately and not in a lump sum. This right may be waived.
2. In an appropriation proceeding brought by a municipality under Chapter I, Division II, Title XII, General Code, application was made to appropriate two separate adjacent tracts of land owned by separate owners as if they comprised one tract owned by joint owners, and trial proceeded on that theory. The owners appeared at the trial and themselves offered evidence as to the value of the two tracts as a whole, and tendered no evidence as to the value of the separate tracts, making no objection that the two tracts should be valued separately until after an assessment of the value of the two tracts was made 'in a lump sum by the jury. Such action amounts to a waiver of the right to question the proceedings.
. Judgment affirmed.
'Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.