Ohio Court of Appeals, 1934

Zanville v. Toledo

Zanville v. Toledo
Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided May 21, 1934 · Lloyd, Richards, Williams
17 Ohio Law. Abs. 353; 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1193

Zanville v. Toledo

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By WILLIAMS, J.

It is clear that the so-called fee which a traffic violator is permitted to pay. within 48 hours, and thereby be released from prosecution for a traffic violation, is not a bill due the city within the meaning of the language of the scrip ordinance. The City could not maintain an action against a; traffic violator for such fee. He simply had the privilege of making such a payment in money within the prescribed time to avoid a prosecution and the penalty or fine which could be imposed upon conviction. The so-called fee of $1.00 is in itself in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture and could not be set off as a “Bill” against scrip owned and held by the traffic violator.

Petition dismissed and writ of mandamus refused.

RICHARDS and LLOYD, JJ, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.