Case Name: Frank L. Mechlem et al. v. Cincinnati (City) et al.
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1905-11-14
Citations: 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 211
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank L. Mechlem et al. v. Cincinnati (City) et al.
Judges: Giffen, J., dissents, for the reason that the evidence shows no go.od ground for repaving the street.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 18
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
ASSESSMENTS.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
November 14, 1905.]
Jelke, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
Frank L. Mechlem et al. v. Cincinnati (City) et al.
Court will not Examine Question of Benefits as a Matter of Course.
A court will examine into the question of benefits only where such inequality exists between the benefit conferred and the assessments levied as to invite equitable intervention; and the fact that the court was divided on the question of whether or not certain property was specially benefited in the amount of the assessment leads to the presumption that the assessment as levied was equitable, and should he sustained.
[Syllabus approved by the court.]
Appeal from Hamilton circuit court.
A. W. Bruck, for plaintiff.
C. J. Hunt, city solicitor, for defendant.

Opinion:
JELKE, J.
We said in the case of Benham v. Cincinnati, 26 O. C. C. 17:
"Where, however, the assessing board has made a finding of benefits and has made the assessment on that basis, such finding and assessment are prima facie correct,, and should not lightly be disturbed or inquired into in the absence of allegations of some of the grounds usually invoking equitable intervention."
In the case at bar, this court is somewhat divided on the question as to whether or not the property has been specially benefited in the amount of the assessment. The very fact that the court can divide on this question, leads a majority of us to hold that the assessment as levied by the assessing board should be sustained. This court does not examine into the question of benefits as a matter of course, and does so only in cases where such inequality between benefits conferred and assessments levied invite equitable intervention. This being so, we are of opinion that the assessment in this case should be allowed to stand.
Giffen, J., dissents, for the reason that the evidence shows no go.od ground for repaving the street.
Swing, J., concurs.