Case Name: THE CITY OF CINCINNATI v. CHARLES P. TAFT et al., Trustees of the Sinking Fund of the City of Cincinnati, and E. A. FERGUSON et al, Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway of the City of Cincinnati
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1899-10
Citations: 19 Ohio C.C. 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CITY OF CINCINNATI v. CHARLES P. TAFT et al., Trustees of the Sinking Fund of the City of Cincinnati, and E. A. FERGUSON et al, Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway of the City of Cincinnati.
Judges: Before Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 19
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
Oct. Term, 1899.)
Before Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
THE CITY OF CINCINNATI v. CHARLES P. TAFT et al., Trustees of the Sinking Fund of the City of Cincinnati, and E. A. FERGUSON et al, Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway of the City of Cincinnati.
Southern Railway Bond Extension Act held to be valid—
This was an action brought by the city of Cincinnati to enjoin the board of Sinking Fund Trustees and the Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway from proceeding under the statutes to extend the time or payment of the outstanding bonds issued under the act of May, 1869, entitled “An act relating to cities of the first class having a population exceeding 15,000 inhabitants.” Authority to extend these bonds is found in the supplementary act of April 25, 1898, the constitutionality whereof was attacked in the present suit. In the court below Judge Davis sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the suit.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

Opinion:
SWING, J.
In our opinion the demurrer-to the petition, should be sustained for the reason that the questions here presented have all been passed upon by the supreme court of the state in the cases involving the constitutionality of the act under which the Cincinnati Southern Railway was built and the different acts supplemental thereto. All these acts have been held by that court to be constitutional. We see nothing in this act which involves any constitutional question not involved in those passed upon by the supreme court. Any discussion of this question in this court would therefore seem not only to be fruitless, but out of plaoe. The rule of stare decisis applies.
Ellis O. Kinhead and Wade Ellis, for the City.
W. M. Kemper and Alfred C.-Cassatt, for the Taxpayer.
E, A. Ferguson, J. R. Sayler and W. T. Porter, for the Defendants.