Case Name: STATE ex rel CLEVELAND v. ZANGERLE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-07-02
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 537
Docket Number: No. 4562
Parties: STATE ex rel CLEVELAND v. ZANGERLE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
No. 563
STATE ex rel CLEVELAND v. ZANGERLE
Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
No. 4562.
Decided July 2, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
COUNTIES — (1) Liability of county under Sec. 2 of 91 Ohiio Laws p. 799 — (2) Public improvements under Sec. 3 of 95 Ohio Laws p. 799 — (3) Mandamus lies to compel county to pay funds.
Attorneys — J. Paul Lamb, for State ex rel City of Cleveland; E. C. Stanton, for Zangerle

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, J.
Epitomized Opinion
This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the County Auditor to draw a warrant upon the County Treasurer for the sum of $2720.96. County Commissioners employed the city to repair the sidewalks surrounding and immediately adjacent to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument located on the City Public Square. The legal title to this monument was 'in Cuyahoga county. The city being properly equipped performed this service; but the county refused to pay the same. A demurrer was filed to the petition which was based upon two grounds: First, that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law, and, second, that there was on provision at law by which the county's general funds were in any way liable for the money ' sued for herein. The trial court sustained the demurrer, whereupon the city prosecuted error. In reversing the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:
1. Under Sec. 2 of 91 OL. 741, and 95 OL. 799, the county was bound to repair the sidewalks around this monument and is liable for the repair of the same.
2. Under Sec. 3 of the act amended in' 95 OL. 799 the rapeir of sidewalks is an improvement to the monument and grounds as well as the monument itself.
3. Under the facts of this case, a mandamus will lie regardless of whether, the relator has ah adequate remedy at law.