Case Name: McGrew v. Village of Elmwood Place
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1895
Citations: 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: McGrew v. Village of Elmwood Place.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 6
Pages: 106–106

Head Matter:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
[Hamilton County Circuit Court. ]
McGrew v. Village of Elmwood Place.
Validity of Contract Entered into by Village to Expend Money Where the Village .Clerk Fails to Make Certificate Required by Section 2702 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio.
A contract entered into by a village whereby it agreed to pay a certain amount of money within a certain time, to be ascertained thereafter, the amount of money not being stated in dollars and cents, but to be ascertained by a fixed rule thereafter, and to be paid by the village out of the general fund, is one that comes within the provisionc of section 2702 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, and is not valid when the terms of such section have not been complied with.
M. G. Heintz and Wm. E. Bundy.
W. W. Pease.

Opinion:
SWING, J.
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas should be affirmed in this case.
We regard the contract in controversy as clearly within section 2702, Revised Statutes. It was a contract between the parties whereby the village agreed to pay a certain amount of money within a certain time, to be ascertained thereafter. The amount of money was not stated in dollars and cents, but was to be ascertained by a fixed rule thereafter. The amount was to be paid by the village, as far as the contract shows, out of the general fund. It was claimed that the contract did not come within the provision of the statute, for the reason that it was to be paid out of the assessments for street improvements. It might be that the village expected to pay for the services with money so received, but there is no :such limitation in the contract. The village, by its terms, is liable on this contract without regard to whether anything is received from property assessed.
The provisions of this statute, we think, are too plain and too broad to permit any such contract to be valid unless the terms of the law have been complied with, and in this case it was admitted that they were not.
Judgment affirmed with costs.