Heffner v. Toledo (City)

Citations

• 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 17
• 9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 1

Syllabus

<p>BONDS — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — TAXATION.</p> <p>Haynes, Parker and Wildman, JJ.</p> <p>1. ORDINANCE EOS ISSUE OE BONDS TO PAY CITY’S SHARE OE THE COST OE SEVERAL Improvements Contemplated Contains but One Subject — Fund so Raised Is General and Not Special.</p> <p>A general ordinance passed by a city council providing for tbe issue of bonds to pay tbe city’s share of tbe cost of certain street and sewer improvements then in contemplation, there being some thirty-two in all of such improvements, and all being named in tbe ordinance, and tbe fund being about to be raised by general taxation of all tbe taxable property of the city, does not violate tbe provisions of Rev. Stat. 1694 (Lan. 31'06; B. 1536-620), in that it contains more than one subject, tbe fund to be raised being a general one, to be devoted to-paying tbe city’s share of tbe cost of improvements wherever they may be, and not necessarily tbe improvements mentioned in the ordinance.</p> <p>[For other cases in point, see 6 Cyc. Dig., “Municipal Corporations,’’ §§ 342-352, 3060 et seq. — Ed.]</p> <p>2. Municipal Bonds to Pay City’s Share oe the Cost oe an Improvement need not Wait Until Special Assessment thereeor be Specially Levied.</p> <p>In providing by ordinance for the issue of bonds to pay the city’s share of the cost of a contemplated improvement, it is not necessary, under Rev. Stat. 1536-213 (Lan. 3604), that the city wait until the assessments therefor on property specially benefited shall have been actually levied, but it is sufficient if the improvement be of the kind for which special assessments may be made, and that such improvement be in contemplation.</p> <p>[For other cases in point, see 2 Cyc. Dig., “Bonds, Negotiable,” §§ 10-26; 6 Cyc. Dig., “Municipal Corporations,” §§ 3060 et seq. — Ed.]</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>