Johnson's Administrator v. Kelly
Ohio Supreme Court
Ti-ie plaintiff declared in case, that the general assembly of Ohio,, by resolution, directed the defendants, as canal commissioners, to-cause to be paid to the plaintiff §5,000, the amount of an award in his favor, by Bates, engineer, for damages sustained by him on a contract touching section No. 1, on the Ohio canal — and averred that he had called on the defendants for the money and that they wrongfully refused to pay.
Read the full summary
Ti-ie plaintiff declared in case, that the general assembly of Ohio,, by resolution, directed the defendants, as canal commissioners, to-cause to be paid to the plaintiff §5,000, the amount of an award in his favor, by Bates, engineer, for damages sustained by him on a contract touching section No. 1, on the Ohio canal — and averred that he had called on the defendants for the money and that they wrongfully refused to pay. Plea, not guilty. ’ The cause was submitted to the court upon an agreed case: from which it appeared that the general assembly, at the close of a session had passed a…
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT.
The defendants are public officers. Ifitbetrue that their refusal deprived the plaintiff of a right to the money, they *should be compelled to pay by mandamus. They cannot be [354 made liable in an action on the case, unless they have acted wilfully and oppressively. There is no evidence upon that point.
Nonsuit ordered.
[Officer not suable for not paying unless malicious — remedy is mandamus, approved; Bates v. Fries, 3 W. L. G. 385, 388 s. c.; 2 Disney, 511, 516.]
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mason v. FrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Fessler's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- County of Armstrong v. BrintonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854