ASSESSMENTS-Continued.

7. Nor is the amount of the
assessment in any way affected by
any sum stated in the notice given
under sec. 2304 of the passage of the
preliminary resolution for an im-
provement.
Ib.

8. Failure to declare specific-
ally in the improvement ordinance
the damages which may be found by
the jury, does not estop the city
from including such damages in the
amount of expenses so to be as-
sessed.
Ib.

9. Property owners petition-
ing for an improvement, will be held
to have participated in the improve-
ment, so as to estop them from de-
nying the validity of the assessment
ordinance duly passed in accordance
with the terms of such petition. Ib.
IO. Where a contractor

agrees to take pay in assessments
and not look to the city, the latter
must give a legal assessment. Kir-
schner v. Cincinnati.
288

II. A municipal corporation
in widening a street need not wait
until the street is graded and im-
proved and assess for the entire
cost, but may assess separately for
the cost of appropriating the ground
before the street is finished. West-
wood v. Dater.

763

12. It is not unconstitutional
to assess back on an abutter's re-
maining land the cost of appropriat-
ing part of it.
Ib.

13. The assessment statutes
are not contrary to U. S. Const.,
art. 14, because sec. 2304, R. S., pro-
Ivides for notice to the property
holder, and sec. 2316 provides for a
hearing.
Ib.

14. In case of two assess-
ments on the same street, if it ap-
pears that both were intended to
make one and the same improve-
ment under sec. 2284, they may be
treated as one proceeding for the
purpose of applying the one-fourth
limit i assessment under sec. 2271.
Strauss v. Cincinnati.
783
15. Improvements having
been ordered by council, it is to be
presumed that they are beneficial.
Ib.

16. A court will not inter-
fere with the assessment where the
proceedings are regular, except for
fraud, malice, gross mistake or
abuse of corporate power.

Ib.

17. Where an improvement
results in damage to an abutting
owner, his remedy is by an applica-
tion under sec. 2315. A claim for

18. The law is settled in
Ohio that where a part of one's
property is taken for a street by
condemnation proceedings the re-
mainder is subject to assessment
under the restrictions governing as-
sessments.
Ib.

19. Where, under sec. 2315, a
return under oath has been filed in
the city clerk's office showing that
an abutting owner has been person-
ally served with a copy of the reso-
lution, the return is prima facie evi-
dence of such service, and the bur-
den of proof is upon the abutter
who denies the service.
Ib.

20. Where the council passed
an ordinance condemning property
to widen a street, providing that the
court costs and condemnation
money should be paid by an assess-
ment upon abutting lot owners, to
be collected in one installment; it
was beyond the power of the board
of public affairs to provide in the
assessing ordinance, that the assess-
ment should be paid in ten install-
ments. Longworth V. Cincinnati.
683

21. Section 2304, has no ap-
plication to appropriation of private
property for public improvements,
and refers only to improvements by
construction.
Ib.

22. It is not essential to the
validity of an appropriating ordi-
nance and assessment founded
thereon, that the board of public
affairs should have recommended
the same or transmitted a prelimi-
nary estimate of the expense of such
appropriation.
Ib.

23. Our assessment laws
having been repeatedly upheld as
valid by our Supreme Court, an in-
ferior state court should decline to
consider the question whether they
violate the U. S. constitution.

Ib.

24. Plaintiffs' assignors ten-
dered a bond to the city conditioned
that he would pay cost and expense
of appropriating land for a street,
the city to levy an assessment upon
abutting lot owners, to pay for ap-
propriation and certify the same to
plaintiffs' assignors. The bond was
approved by board of public works
pending passage of ordinance, was
'read in council, but not in board of
aldermen. The ordinance to con-
demn passed all boards, and was ap-
proved. Plaintiffs' assignors paid
condemnation money into city treas-
ury and the city used it to open the
street. No assessment was yet

27. No promise either to
verify assessments or to return the
money is to be implied from the
city's using the money.
Ib.
28. The provisions of the
Municipal Code regulating the mode
of assessing private property for
public improvements are not in con-
flict with the 14th amendment of the
U. S. Const. in respect to notice to
property owners to be assessed, and
an opportunity to be heard. Ander-
son v. Cincinnati.

sec.

794
29. The opening, widening
or extension of a public street by a
municipality is a public improve-
ment within the meaning of
2304, R. S., and a resolution declar-
ing the necessity of such improve-
ment, and the service of notice. etc.,
are jurisdictional requirements nec-
essary to a valid assessment upon
private property, under the munici-
pal code revised in 1880.
Ib.

30. An error in such a pro-
ceeding which is fundamental and
jurisdictional, cannot be cured un-
der curative sec. 2289, R. S. Ib.

31. Assessments levied to
pay the cost of improvements, of
streets improved under the act of
April 25. 1885, (82 L., 156), may in-
clude one-half the damages paid to
abutting owners, for injuries to
property caused by the improve-
ment. Corry v. Cincinnati. бол
ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS

1. Property assigned for
benefit of creditors and not so ap-
plied, may be subjected to payment
of claims of creditors when re-con-
veyed to assignor, and by him trans-
ferred to a purchaser with notice of
trust. Alt v. Weber.
371

2. Creditors are not estop-
ped by the finding of a decree to the

effect that their claims have been
settled, made in an action between
the assignor and assignee to deter-
mine individual claims made by
them to the property assigned. Ib.

3. A creditor received secur-
ities from an insolvent debtor, in
trust, to be sold, and out of the pro-
ceeds to pay her own claim and the
claims of certain other creditors;
held, an assignment for the general
benefit of creditors. Feed Co. v.
Shute.
198
4. An assignee for creditors
does not. by mere acceptance of such
assignment, become liable to pay-
ment under a lease which previous
to such assignment belonged to his
assignor, even if the leasehold is
specifically mentioned in the assign-
ment. Cincinnati v. Goodhue. 345

5. Such assignee has a right
to decide whether the leasehold will
benefit his estate, and has a reason-
able time in which to elect, to accept
or reject the same.
Ib.

8. Mere entry upon the
premises to remove the goods of the
assignor is not an election to take
the same.
Ib.

7. If, however, the assignee
enters the premises and uses the
same for the benefit of the estate,
this is an election to take the lease,
and makes the assignee personally
liable for the rent.

Ib.

I. An attachment will lie
against a husband defendant in a di-
vorce suit, who having the means
willfully and purposely refuse to
comply with the order of the court.
Stewart v. Stewart.
662

2. The order in such case
does not create a debt within the
meaning of the constitution, and de-
fendant may be held to answer an
attachment and be punished as for
the willful refusal to comply with
such order.
Ib.

3. Where a creditor of a
non-resident debtor, fraudulently
and without the debtor's knowledge
or consent, causes the debtor's prop-
erty to be brought into the state and
attached on the ground of non-resi-
dence, such attachment is fraudu
lent, and will be set aside under sec.
5562, R. S. Kizer v. George. 218
4. A
valid lien upon the
property of a non-resident of the

ATTACHMENT-Continued.

state may be obtained by the levy of
an attachment issued from a court
of a county other than that wherein
the property is situated. Refining
Co. v. Smith.

424

5. Where defendant in at-
tachment, based on her alleged con-
veyance of real estate with intent to
hinder and defraud creditors, admit-
ted through her counsel that she
was insolvent, and that the deed of
the real estate complained of was
"without consideration," and after-
wards sought to prove considera-
tion, such admissions must be con-
strued to mean that no considera-
tion passed, because the deed never
took effect, rather than that the
deed, on its face for value, was in
fact voluntary. Pierce V. White.
552

6. It was competent to ask
defendant whether she intended, by
such conveyance, to put her prop-
erty beyond the reach of her cred-
itors.
Ib.
7. There is no conclusive
presumption of fraud arising from
an intent on defendant's part to turn
real estate into money.
Ib.
8. That a deed, unaccepted
by the grantee, derives no force as a
deed from being recorded.
Ib.

9. Evidence of an attempt to
convey by a deed which never took
effect, does not sustain an allegation
in an affidavit for attachment, that
defendant has disposed of and con-
veyed her property, and that, in the
absence of amendment, such vari-
ance requires the dissolution of the
attachment.
Ib.

ceived for deposit from G., the agent
of W., a check on another bank to
G.'s account in this bank and receive
in exchange therefor a draft of such
insolvent bank on another bank
where it had no funds: Held.

2. That W. as against the re-
Iceiver of such insolvent bank was
entitled to rescind the contract of
deposit of the check for fraud, and
on the tender of the dishonored
draft was entitled to a delivery up of
the check. Warner v. Armstrong.

426

3. W. was entitled in equity
to enjoin suit against himself by the
receiver in a jurisdiction where G.'s
assignee in insolvency, who held the
dishonored draft and refused to de-
liver the same to W. or the receiver,
could not be made party.
Ib.

4. It was held by the court in
general term, that W. was enticed
in equity to set off against his liabij-
ity on his unpaid check, the amount
due him on the unpaid draft.
strong v. Warner.

Arm-
434

5. It was further held that
W. was entitled in equity to set off
G.'s deposit against his iiability on
the bill of exchange.
Ib.

6. A depositor in a bank is
not bound to look for forged signa-
tures among his checks when his
book is balanced and the checks re-
turned to him, and will not be pre-
sumed to have acquiesced in the ac-
count charging him with the pay-
ment of such check, where he has
failed for more than a reasonable
time to examine the checks and dis-
cover the forgery. Bank v. Creasy.

121

BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS -

I. Possession does not prove
title in an assignee of a note wher?
the payee denies having assigned it
and claims his signature to be a for-
gery by one to whom he had in-
trusted it. Martin v. Drake.

77

2. The holder of a negotiable
promissory note (secured by mort-
gage), who in good faith acquired
title by payee's endorsement, for
value before maturity, and who ex-
ercised due care and diligence in
ascertaining the facts of the mort-
gage and of payee's interest therein,
has an equity to the mortgage su-
perior to that acquired by one to
whom, prior to time of said endorse-
ment, the payee had, for value, de-
livered both a forgery of the note
and the genuine mortgage bearing a
formal assignment of the mortgage.

Ib.

em-

I. A combination by a trade
union and others to coerce an em-
ployer to conduct his business with
reference to apprentices and
ployment of delinquent members of
the union, etc., is an unlawful con-
spiracy. Moores & Co. v. Brick-
layers' Union.
665
man against

2. A material
whom such threatened measures
were taken because of his failure to
heed the notices and whose trade
was injured by further notices sent to
his customers, etc., has a right of ac-
tion' against the union and all its
agents engaged in such unlawful
conspiracy for the loss thereby oc-
casioned.
Ib.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—

1. The civil rights act, (81 O.
L., 90), cannot be made to apply to
an incorporated restaurant business,
where its existence is not dependent
upon obtaining a license from the
authorities. Hargo v. Harf.

441

2. Such business is a private
enterprise, and hence the owner has
exclusive control as to whom he will
admit and may exclude any person,
whether white or colored, reason-
ably or unreasonably.

Ib.

3. It is not unconstitutional
to assess back on an abutter's re-
maining land the cost of appropriat
ing part of it. Westwood v. Dater.
763
statutes

assessment
4. The
are not contrary to the U. S. Const.,
art. 14, because sec. 2304, provides
for notice to the property holder,
and sec. 2316, provides for a hear-
ing.
Ib.
5. Section 5639, R. S., is
either declaratory of the common
law of contempts of courts, sum-
marily punishable, or it is partly de-
claratory and partly restrictive of
that law, and so far as it is restrict-
ive it is unconstitutional. State v.
Myers.

238

6. An act (84 O. L., 221) au-
thorizing commissioners of Hamil-
ton county to erect a monument to
W. H. H., if a majority of the elec-
tors so vote, is constitutional. Dex-
ter v. Raine.
25

7. The act of April 14, 1886,
amending the act of May 11, 1878,
so far as it increases or adds the
penalty for missions to list property
for taxation before 1886, is retro-
active, and is therefore unconstitu-
tional. Treasurer of Erie Co. v.
Walker.

558

8. The act of the general as-
sembly passed March 19, 1889, re-
quiring all cities of the third grade
of the first class, to levy the cost of
the intersections in street improve-
ments on the general tax duplicate,
and making its provisions applicabie
to improvements previously ordered
for which no assessments have been
made is not in conflict with sec. 23,
art. 2 of the constitution of the state.
Toledo v. Toledo.
574

9. The taxes provided for by
the said act, are included in the ag-
gregate of 14 mills to the levying of
which such cities
are by law re-
stricted.
Ib.

10. The provisions of the
municipal code regulating the mole
of assessing private property for
public improvements are not in con-
flict with the 14th amendment of the
U. S. Const. in respect to notice to
property owners to be assessed, and
an opportunity to be heard.
derson v. Cincinnati.

An-

794

II. Section 1802, R. S., au-
thorizing the mayor to appoint a
person to act as police judge in the
temporary absence of the duly
elected judge, is not in contraven-
tion of constitution, art. 4, secs. 10,
13. Moliter v. State.
324
12. Section 1804, R. S., per-