Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Ohio Circuit Courts V.1-35 Ohio Circuit Decisions Volume 15

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Ohio Circuit Courts V.1-35 Ohio Circuit Decisions Volume 15

By (author) 

List price: US$52.90

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ... 45 Ohio St. 9s, 104 12 N. E. Rep. 651. Where the conditions of the ordinance do not clearly appear to be conditions precedent, they will be regarded as conditions subsequent. State v. Boyce, -13 Ohio St. 46 1 N. E. Rep. 217. The law strictly construes provisions working forfeitures. Such statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words; no person is to be made subject to them by implication, and all doubts concerning their interpretation are to preponderate in favor of the accused. Only those transactions are covered by them which are within both their spirit and their letter. State v. Boyce, 43 Ohio St. 46, 50 1 N. E. Rep. 217. We believe a mere technical violation of a condition subsequent in an ordinance involving no substantial loss or injury is never construed to be a cause of forfeiture. People v. Railway Co. 125 N. Y. 513 26 N. E. Rep. 622; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. People, 73 Ill. 541, 549. A court of equity will not take the place of the city council and both create and enforce the forfeiture. VVhen a condition subsequent is contained in an ordinance and the street railway company has violated its terms and the proper legislative power of the city has elected to avail itself of the right to declare a forfeiture, then and not till then will a court of equity declare that a forfeiture exists and decree its enforcement. Hamilton St. Ry. Elec. Co. v. Electric Transit Co. 3 Circ. Dec. 158 (5 R. 319, 323). City authorities may waive the forfeiture of a franchise, and an abutting owner cannot be permitted to enjoin the exercise of the franchise, and thus prevent the city from executing its right of waiver. Barney v. Railway Co. 11 Re. 880 (30 Bull. 286). The ordinance would seem to vest in the village the power to act and..
show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 402 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 21mm | 717g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236890892
  • 9781236890894