Ohio Supreme Court, 1926

State Ex Rel. Hile v. Zangerle

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 11, 1926 · Marshall, Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson

151 N.E. 769; 115 Ohio St. 32; 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 32; 1926 Ohio LEXIS 320 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

State, Ex Rel. Justice v. Thomas (Ohio Ct. App. 1930)
Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Kingan (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
State ex rel. Miller v. Price (Ohio 1965)
State ex rel. Cleveland Concession Co. v. Peck (Ohio 1954)
State ex rel. Welker v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1948)
Pierron v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (Ohio Ct. App. 1940)
Humphries v. Wheeling Steel Corp. (Ohio 1937)
State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1937)
State ex rel. Pyles v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1937)
State, Ex Rel. Bennett v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1935)
State ex rel. Bennett v. Indust Comm (Ohio Ct. App. 1935)
State ex rel. Szalay v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1935)
State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1934)
State ex rel. Randolph v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1934)
State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1933)
State ex rel. Cezkovsky v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1933)
Industrial Comm. v. Meininger (Ohio Ct. App. 1931)
State v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. (Ohio Ct. App. 1931)
State ex rel. Rowlands v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county to enjoin the county auditor of that county from issuing warrants of the county to the several defendants named for salary as court constables. They had been appointed to such positions by the 12 judges of the court of common pleas under authority of Sections 1692 and 1693, General Code. The ground upon which the injunction was sought is that the judges abused their discretion by appointing more constables than were necessary to perform the services required, and, further, that the statutes referred to are violative of Sections 20 and 26, of Article II, of the state Constitution. Upon hearing on March 3, 1924., the court of common pleas denied relator the relief prayed for and dismissed his petition.

*33 The cause was heard in the Court of Appeals on appeal, where judgment was rendered for defendants upon the pleadings and the statements of counsel setting forth the facts supporting the pleadings which they offered to prove. No hill of exceptions was procnred setting forth these statements; hence no question is before this court, except that presented by the claim of unconstitutionality of such statutory provision.

The persons designated cannot be deemed to be officers within the provisions of the Constitution. They are merely employes designated in the manner provided by law to serve at the pleasure of the court to perform certain duties under the direction of the court.

It follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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