Case Name: CORRY et al. v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI et al.
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1899
Citations: 6 Ohio N.P. 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: CORRY et al. v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 325–325

Head Matter:
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)
Special Term,
1899.
CORRY et al. v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI et al.
In a petition for a street improvement, the signature is good and binding of a widow who-signs for a lot belonging- to her deceased husband, their children having all attained their majority and consenting thereto.
I. J. Miller, for Plaintiffs.
Ellis G. Kinkead, for the City,
Heard on application for a perpetual injunction against the collection of the assessment for the improvement of Madison street, from Hammcndto Corry.
One of the lots abutting upon the improvement involved in this, case belonged to the estate of John H. Lindemann, deceased, who left a widow' and children, all of whom at the time of the signing cf the petition for the improvement, had attained their majority. The widow signed the petition for the improvement, which signing, according tc the agreed statement of facts, “all of the children afterward ratified. ’’

Opinion:
Jackson, J.
The plaintiffs' application for a perpetual injunction must be denied.
The case of city of Columbus v. Sohl, 44 Ohio St., 481, holds that an abutting property owner may sign a petition for improvement by agent as well as in person, and that such petition is valid although the agency is not disclosed by the signer. Applying this rule to the facts cf this case, I think the petition was signed by three-fourths in interest of the abutting property owners, and that the plaintiffs can net therefore escape by payment of one-fourth of the value of the property.
I find that there is properly chargeable against, lot No. 4 the sum of $45.85; against lot No. 7 the sum of $45.85, and against Jot No. 8 the sum of $63.
As to lot No. 9, the agreed statement of facts shows the assessment has not been on the tax list since 1891. It would therefore seem that the lien was lost by reason of the provisions'of section 2297, R. S. Ohio. The city dees not claim that the assessment against any other lots are subsisting liens.
A decree may be taken accordingly,