Case Name: ELIZABETH SHRODER v. JOHN G. OVERMANN, CLERK, et al.
Court: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1897-01
Citations: 5 Ohio N.P. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIZABETH SHRODER v. JOHN G. OVERMANN, CLERK, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
(Hamilton County, Common Pleas Court.)
January 1897.
ELIZABETH SHRODER v. JOHN G. OVERMANN, CLERK, et al.
The statutes authorize the suspension of the rule requiring that ordinances providing for street improvemnts be read a second and third time, and on three different da^s.,
The slipping of an imperfectly made street upon an abutting owner’s lot is merely an incident, and is not a defense against the assessment.
On demurrer to the third, fourth and sixth causes of action set up in the petition.
Plaintiff brought an action against the village of St. Bernard, the clerk thereof, and the auditor and treasurer of Hamilton county, praying for an injunction to restrain the collection of an assessment levied for the improvement of Church St. in the village of St. Bernard, Hamilton Co. Among other things complained of by the plaintiff in the petition were the following grounds or causes of action :
Gorman & Thompson, for the Demurrer.
Theodore Horstman, for the Plaintiff.
“Third. Plaintiff avers that said ordinance to improve said Church street was not legally passed and is void, for the reason that the same was not read on three different days before its passage by the counciof the village of St. Bernard. Plaintiff says tnat said ordinance to improve had its first reading in council on June 15th, 18.93and'on motion the rules were suspended for the purpose ot passing said ordinance to improve, and said ordinance thereupon vas passed, but never had a second or third reading.
“Fourth. The ordinance passed on oabout the 16th of August, 1891, to assess property for the expenses of said improvement, was not legally passed, for the reason that it was not read upon three different days, nor were the rules suspended for the purpose of dispensing with such readings on three different days, but said ordinance had buc one reading for its passage.”
“Sixth. Plaintiff avers that said improvement (of Church street) has been constructed in an imperfect and unworkmanlike manner so that the earth from said street abutting upon said plaintiff’s property has slipped upon said plaintiff’s premises and damaged the same in an amount larger than said assessment.”
To these three complaints or causes of action, the defendants, the village of St. Bernard and John G. Overmann, its clerk, demur.

Opinion:
BUCHWALTER, J.
Much as I dislike to encourage any tendency to laxity in the observance of the safeguards sought to be put around public improvements, yet I hold that the statutes authorize a suspension of the rule requiring ordinances to be read the second and third time as well as on three different days, and I therefore hold that the demurrer to the third and fourth defenses set up in the petition, is well taken, and do therefore sustain the same.
As to the sixth, defense the plaintiff pleads that the street was constructed in an imperfect and unworkmanlike manner, and had slipped (the material got on the plaintiff's lot). That the slip passed in to the plaintiff's lot and damaged the same is only an incident. The damage to the lot is surplusage and is no defense, but the failure to make a street is a defense to the assessment if true.
' The demurrer to this cause of action is overruled.