State ex rel. Hartshorn v. Walker
Ohio Supreme Court
. These are Informations in the nature of Quo Warranto, reserved in the County of Allen. The two cases are substantially alike. The relators set forth that the defendants, on the 6th of March, 1848 ; “ did usurp, in trade into, and unlawfully exercise, and from thence up to the 7th day of March, 1848, continued, without any legal right, to hold and exercise the office of Commissioner of Allen county, contrary to the laws of the State.”
Read the full summary
. These are Informations in the nature of Quo Warranto, reserved in the County of Allen. The two cases are substantially alike. The relators set forth that the defendants, on the 6th of March, 1848 ; “ did usurp, in trade into, and unlawfully exercise, and from thence up to the 7th day of March, 1848, continued, without any legal right, to hold and exercise the office of Commissioner of Allen county, contrary to the laws of the State.” Also, that by the act erecting the new county of Auglaize, the defendants became residents of said county, by being included within the territorial limits…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, C. J.
Upon the preceding statement of facts, our first inquiry is, whether the facts show a right in the defendants to retain the offices to which they were respectively elected. The 4th section of the sixth article of the constitution, declares that the appointment of all civil officers, not otherwise directed by the constitution, shall be made in such manner as may be directed by law. There is no provision in the constitution for the election of a county commissioner. The office is a creature of the statutes. Its duties are there defined, and to them we must look for the main guide in determining…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Chidester v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1874
- Henry v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1878
- Irwin v. JacquesOhio Supreme Court · 1905
- Sears v. SearsOhio Supreme Court · 1907