Mcnab v. Board Of Park Commrs.; State Board Of Park Commrs.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1923
• Docket Number: 17915,17674
• Citation: 141 N.E. 332,108 Ohio St. 497
• Parties: Mcnab Et Al. v. The Board Of Park Commrs. Of The Metropolitan Park District In Cleveland.; The State, Ex Rel. Stanton, Pros. Atty., v. The Board Of Park Commrs. Of The Cleveland Metropolitan Park District Et Al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

141 N.E. 332

108 Ohio St. 497

Mcnab Et Al. v. The Board Of Park Commrs. Of The Metropolitan Park District In Cleveland.; The State, Ex Rel. Stanton, Pros. Atty., v. The Board Of Park Commrs. Of The Cleveland Metropolitan Park District Et Al.

Nos. 17674 , 17915

Supreme Court of Ohio

October 30, 1923

Constitutional law-Board of park commissioners of Cleveland metropolitan park district-Section 2976.1 et seq., General Code-Conservation of natural resources.

The various sections of the acts of the General Assembly involved in the creation of the board of park commissioners of the Cleveland metropolitan park district, especially Sections 2976-1 and 2976-7 to 2976-101, inclusive, are not in conflict with any provision of the Constitution of Ohio, especially Section 36 of Article II.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward C. Stanton, prosecuting attorney; Mr George C. Hansen and Messrs. Mathews, Bell & Winsper, for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Locher, Green & Woods, for defendants in error, Mr. C. M. Horn, amicus curiae, on behalf of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce.

WANAMAKER J.

These two cases, because they involve essentially the same question of fact and principles of law, have been heard and considered together. The first case was merely an appropriation in the insolvency court; the second case was one of injunction begun in the court of common pleas, where all legal and constitutional questions were more properly raised. The opinion is especially directed to the latter case, which challenged, both as to facts and law, the power of the board of park commissioners of the Cleveland metropolitan park district Upon the issues joined a referee was appointed by the court of common pleas to take the testimony and report the findings of fact. The referees findings of fact, so far as pertinent, are as follows:

"(1) The board of commissioners of the Cleveland metropolitan park district is not chargeable with any dereliction or neglect of duty in conducting the administrative affairs of the Cleveland metropolitan park district.

"(2) The charge that the activities of the board have been made the subject of private gain for certain present and past members and functionaries of the board and persons in close relationship there to, by means of creation of inflated and artificial values of land held and acquired by them, is not sustained.

"(3) The plans of the board of commissioners of the Cleveland metropolitan park district contemplate the improvement of land areas already acquired for park and recreational purposes and for such other uses as the same may be put to by the population of Cleveland, its suburbs, and adjoining territory.

"(4) The facts do not show that it is proposed to build and construct an elaborate system of boulevards and driveways, or that such is the paramount and real purpose of the Cleveland metropolitan park district.

"(5) The facts do not show the defendant board and its members to be usurping the functions and powers of the board of county commissioners of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, or that the funds collected through taxation are being expended for purposes other than in the conserving of natural resources.

"(6) The facts show that the Cleveland metropolitan park district through its board of commissioners, is engaged in the conserving of natural resources through the creation of parks and park-ways, the purpose of which is to afford to the people places for recreational and health purposes, and in preserving the natural beauty and scenery of the land areas owned by it and for all uses to which it can be put.

"(7) The weight of the testimony as adduced by expert witnesses as to what is meant by the phrase conservation of natural resources shows that it is not limited to such subjects as land, water, forests and minerals, nor does the testimony show that the National Congress of Conservation, held at Washington, attempted to exclude other natural resources, or to the safeguarding of objects provided by nature, which could be or should be used in an economic way, and for the production of pecuniary values, but it includes the acquiring of lands for park areas and the development thereof, the use of which will contribute and be appropriate for the health and general welfare of the community and with those things which are found in nature that can be used to meet some human need."

Exceptions were duly taken to such findings of fact, and a hearing had in the court of common pleas. That court, upon the issues joined, and the findings of fact of the referee, found in favor of the park commissioners. Error was thereupon prosecuted to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment below was affirmed.

It is now sought to reverse the judgment of the court below upon both questions of fact and law. The referee's findings of fact, upon a most painstaking and lengthy hearing unusually voluminous of record, followed by the approval and judgment of the court of common pleas, and affirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon this court, unless it should appear which it does not...