In re Sulzmann, Nos. 23467

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation125 Ohio St. 594,183 N.E. 531
Decision Date30 November 1932
Docket NumberNos. 23467,23468.
PartiesIn re SULZMANN, Sheriff.

125 Ohio St. 594
183 N.E. 531

In re SULZMANN, Sheriff.

Nos. 23467, 23468.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 30, 1932.


Error to Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.

In the matter of the removal from office of John M. Sulzmann, Sheriff of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. A judgment of forfeiture of office was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the Sheriff brings error.

Affirmed.

This case arises as an error proceeding to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county, which affirmed the judgment of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, issued in the matter of the removal from office of John M. Sulzmann, sheriff of Cuyahoga county, Ohio. The case was heard upon certain complaints filed in the court of common pleas of that county, alleging, in substance, that John M. Sulzmann, as sheriff of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, had refused and willfully neglected to enforce the law, had refused and willfully neglected to perform official duties imposed upon him by law, and was guilty of gross neglect of duty and of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance in office, in that the ‘said John M. Sulzmann, from the 29th day of June, 1931 to and including the 11th day of July, 1931, and on each several day (except the 5th and 10th days of July) during said period of time knowingly permitted, suffered and consented to notorious and open betting, gambling, gaming and the making of wagers for money at a certain race track field in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, commonly known as North Randall Race Track, contrary to the form of Section 13059 of the General Code of Ohio; knowingly permitted, suffered and consented to the notorious and open keeping and operation of a building on the private grounds of said race track field with apparatus, books and other devices for recording wagers upon the result of a trial or contest of skill, speed and power of endurance of beasts, to wit race horses, contrary to the form of Section 13062 of the General Code of Ohio; and knowingly permitted, suffered and consented to the notorious and open sale of tickets representing interests in schemes of chance at said race track field contrary to the form of Section 13063 of the General Code of Ohio; and all against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.’

The complaint prayed for judgment of forfeiture of office against John M. Sulzmann, and judgment of forfeiture as prayed for was rendered by the court of common pleas.

Motion to certify the record having been filed after affirmance of the judgment of the court of common pleas by the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county, the case was admitted to this court.

Further facts are stated in the opinion.


[Ohio St. 596]

[183 N.E. 532]

Day & Day, Donald W. Kling, and George H. Rudolph,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...106 Neb. 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 Pac. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 S.W. 642; In re Sulzman, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531; Mays v. Robertson, 172 Ark. 279, 288 S.W. 382; Sec. 10335, Arkansas Digest; State ex inf. v. Wymore, 132 S.W. (2d) 987; Youn......
  • Wynn v. Bd. of Assessors of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 13, 1932
    ...the absence of a finding by the assessors or the appellate board that there was reasonable excuse for the delay, he would not have been [183 N.E. 531]entitled to an abatement by the appellant board. Section 64; Sears v. Nahant, 2 Mass. 558, 91 N. E. 913. Under the amendment, when applicable......
  • Crabbs v. Scott, No. 14–4068.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 4, 2015
    ...serves as the county's “chief law enforcement officer” with jurisdiction “coextensive with” the county's borders, In re Sulzmann, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531, 532 (1932).Six: A sheriff's law enforcement duties at common law represented local functions. See 70 Am.Jur.2d Sheriffs, Police, ......
  • State v. Knight, No. 17256-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 6, 1995
    ...135 Tenn. 653, 188 S.W. 225, 228 (1916); see also Com. ex rel Davis v. Malbon, 195 Va. 368, 78 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1953); In re Sulzmann, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531, 532 (1932). Although Washington lacks a case on point, cf. State ex rel. Johnston v. Melton, 192 Wash. 379, 73 P.2d 1334 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...106 Neb. 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 Pac. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 S.W. 642; In re Sulzman, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531; Mays v. Robertson, 172 Ark. 279, 288 S.W. 382; Sec. 10335, Arkansas Digest; State ex inf. v. Wymore, 132 S.W. (2d) 987; Youn......
  • Wynn v. Bd. of Assessors of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 13, 1932
    ...the absence of a finding by the assessors or the appellate board that there was reasonable excuse for the delay, he would not have been [183 N.E. 531]entitled to an abatement by the appellant board. Section 64; Sears v. Nahant, 2 Mass. 558, 91 N. E. 913. Under the amendment, when applicable......
  • Crabbs v. Scott, No. 14–4068.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 4, 2015
    ...serves as the county's “chief law enforcement officer” with jurisdiction “coextensive with” the county's borders, In re Sulzmann, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531, 532 (1932).Six: A sheriff's law enforcement duties at common law represented local functions. See 70 Am.Jur.2d Sheriffs, Police, ......
  • State v. Knight, No. 17256-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 6, 1995
    ...135 Tenn. 653, 188 S.W. 225, 228 (1916); see also Com. ex rel Davis v. Malbon, 195 Va. 368, 78 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1953); In re Sulzmann, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E. 531, 532 (1932). Although Washington lacks a case on point, cf. State ex rel. Johnston v. Melton, 192 Wash. 379, 73 P.2d 1334 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT