Skip to main content
· 2/4/1916

State ex rel. Clemmer & Johnson Co. v. Turner

Citations

  • 93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 379

Syllabus

<p>State armory — Execution of contract, delivery of deed for site and payment of money — State estopped to question constitutionality of law, when — Title of state to property cannot be questioned, when — Authority of state armory board — To adopt plans for building — Including auditorium in armory — Issue of abuse of discretion not raised, when — Pleading.</p> <p>1. Where the state has entered into a contract to build an armory building in a city, upon the conditions that a site be provided and that $50,000 in money be contributed by the citizens to the cost of construction, and the city, in pursuance of such contract, has executed and delivered a deed for such site to the state and the same has been accepted by the state armory board and placed of record, and the citizens have paid $50,000 in money to the credit of the adjutant general of the state, to be expended in the construction of an armory building as agreed upon, the state is estopped to question the constitutionality of the law authorizing the city to make such conveyance. (Tone v. Cohtmbus, 39 Ohio St., 281, approved and followed.)</p> <p>2. Where a taxpayer has not timely intervened to prevent a city from conveying title to property for an armory site to the state, and the deed has been actually executed and delivered by the city and accepted by the state, neither party to the transaction can question the title of the state to the property so conveyed. (Markley v. Village of Mineral City, 58 Ohio St., 430; paragraph 3 of syllabus approved and' followed.)</p> <p>3. The state armory board is authorized by the statutes of this state to adopt such plans for the construction of an armory building as will in its judgment meet the needs of the organized militia of the state in the locality in which such building is to be constructed. In the absence of fraud or abuse of discretion, the judgment of the state armory board is final upon this subject and cannot be reviewed by the courts.</p> <p>4. An averment in a

Judges: Donahue, Johnson, Jones, Matthias, Newman, Nichols, Wanamaker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.