Case Name: Mary H. Benham v. Cincinnati
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1904
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. Dec. 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary H. Benham v. Cincinnati.
Judges: Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 16
Pages: 17–17

Head Matter:
ASSESSMENTS — INJUNCTION—COURTS.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
1904.]
Giffen, Jelke and Swing, JJ.
Mary H. Benham v. Cincinnati.
1. Court may Hear Evidence as to Special Benefits From Street Improvements. ,
The court has power to hear evidence as to the amount of special benefits when the collection of assessments, made against property abutting on a street improvement to pay the cost thereof, is sought to be enjoined.
2. Finding of Benefits by Assessing Board Prima Facie Correct — Not Disturbed, When.
A finding of benefits by the assessing board, and the making of an assessment on that basis against properly abutting on a street improvement to pay the cost thereof, is prima facie correct, and will not be lightly disturbed or inquired into when plaintiff, in an action to enjoin the collection of the assessment, fails to allege some of the grounds usually invoking equitable intervention.
Error to court of common pleas of Hamilton county.
F. M. Coppock, A. T. Brown and O. ,W. Kuhn, for plaintiff.
Chas. J. Hunt and J. V; Campbell, for defendant.

Opinion:
JELKE, J.
The conclusion reached in Thornton v. Cincinnati, post 33, is applicable to this ease also.
As to the power of the lower court to hear evidence as to the amount of special benefits, we said in the cáse of Cincinnati v. Shoemaker, 25 O. C. C. 256, 257: "If the benefits conferred aré equal to the assessment, there is nothing to move a court' of equity to intervene by' injunction. " This was approved by the Supreme Court.
Of course a court cannot make the finding and decree an injunction on that ground without hearing evidence as to the special benefits.
A eorollary of the above is that a trial court may hear evidence of special benefits, find the same, and 'then sáy that up to this point we will not enjoin, beyond it we will, which is practically fixing the assessment. See Schroder v. Overman, 61 Ohio St. 1 [55 N. E. Rep. 158; 47 L. R. A. 156] ; Walsh v. Sims, 65 Ohio St. 211 [62 N. E. Rep. 120] ; Shoemaker v. Cincinnati, 68 Ohio St. 603.
Where, however, the assessing board has'made a-finding of benefits and has made the-assessment on that basis, süeh finding and assessment are prima faoie correct, and-should not lightly be disturbed or-inquired into in the absence of allegations of some of the-grounds usually invoking, equitable-intervention: .
Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.