Cowen v. State ex rel. Donovan

Citations

• 101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387

Syllabus

<p>State highway laws — Act of May 27, 1915 (106 O. L., 574) — Curative provisions apply, when — Defects in proceedings cured, ivhen — Failure to advertise for bids — Section 1206, General Code — ’Act of December 18, 1919 (108 O. L., pt. 2, 1122) — Validating and ratifying highway contracts — Inoperative upon contracts adjudicated invalid — Judgments and error proceedings unaffected, zvhen.</p> <p>1. Section 301 of Chapter XIII of an Act of the General Assembly entitled “An Act to provide a system of highway laws for the state of Ohio, and to repeal all sections of the General Code and acts inconsistent herewith,” passed May 17, 1915 (106 O. L., 574, 662), has to do only with contracts and proceedings had since May 10, 1910, under Sections 6956-1 to 6956-16, inclusive, General Code, all of which, except Section 6956-16, are repealed by that act, and is of no force or efficacy to cure a defect resulting from failure to comply with the requirements of Section 1206, General Code (106 O. L., 634, paragraph 199), in the proceedings of the state highway commissioner in the letting of a contract for the improvement of a county section of an inter-county highway had after the passage of that act and under other provisions thereof.</p> <p>2. The act of the General Assembly entitled “An Act providing for the validation and ratification of certain contracts of the state entered into through the state highway department,” passed December 18, 1919 (108 O. L., part 2, 1122), has no legal application or operation to cure defects in the letting'of a contract for the improvement of a county section of an inter-county highway, which ’contract by final judgment of a court of appeals of this state entered on November 11, 1919, was held illegal and further proceedings thereunder enjoined. Neither does that enactment authorize the supreme court to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals so rendered before its passage, although the act went into effect before the case was heard in th