Carlisle v. Cincinnati (City)

Citations

• 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 81

Syllabus

<p>ASSESSM ENTS — DAM AGES — ESTOPPEL.</p> <p>Jelke, Swing and Giffen, JJ.</p> <p>1. Damages for Appropriating Property and Costs Cannot be Included in Assessment for Improvement.</p> <p>An assessment for a street improvement insofar as it includes damages awarded to the property owners, the costs of the suit to assess compen- ■ sation therefor, or the cost of grading or lowering the street to the new grade is illegal and may he enjoined.</p> <p>[For other cases in point, see 4 Cyc. Dig., “Eminent Domain,” §§ 436-438; 6 Cyc. Dig., “Municipal Corporations,” §§ 1639-1645. — Ed.]</p> <p>2. Incidental Benefits Blended with Incidental Injuries Considered bt Jury.</p> <p>In an action to assess damages to abutting property on account of a proposed street improvement, the jury, while disregarding the general benefits which may result to the property, may consider an incidental benefit which is blended with an incidental injury, for the purpose of arriving at the extent of the injury sustained by the property.</p> <p>[For other cases in point, see 6 Cyc. Dig., “Municipal Corporations,” § 1449 et seq. — Ed.]</p> <p>3. Signer of Original Petition not Estopped from Contesting Assessment for Improvement on Subsequent Petition not Signed by Him.</p> <p>The signing by an abutting owner, of a petition for improvement of a street to a certain grade, does not estop him from. contesting the legality of the assessment, where the original petition was referred back to the property owners with the direction to file a new petition for an improvement at a different grade, and the second petition was not signed by the contesting owner.</p> <p>[For other cases in point, see 4 Cyc. Dig., “Estoppel,” §§ 45-60; 6 Cyc. Dig., “Municipal Corporations,” §§ 1213-1216, 1279. — Ed.]</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>