State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 25 June 1897 |
| Citation | 47 N.E. 569,56 Ohio St. 721 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KINNEY, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of the attorney general, against Charles Kinney, secretary of state. Judgment for plaintiff.
Syllabus by the Court
Joint Resolution April 16, 1896 (92 Laws, p. 787), submitting the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electors of the state, held invalid.
F. S. Monnett, Atty. Gen., and Daniel J. Ryan, for plaintiff.
H. M. Daugherty and J. F. Laning, for defendant.
The statute law of the state can neither be repealed nor amended by a joint resolution of the general assembly. In the joint resolution adopted April 16, 1896 (92 Ohio Laws, p. 787), recommending to the electors of the state the necessity for a convention to revise, amend, or change the constitution of the state, the provision directing the mode in which they shall vote thereon, the provision authorizing the deputy state supervisors of elections to determine how the official ballot shall in this regard be printed, and the provision that the convention shall not sit more than 90 days, and that the pay of its members shall not exceed five dollars each per day, are void. And, these provisions being so intimately connected with the recommendation for calling a convention that the court cannot say that the recommendation would have been made without these void provisions, the whole resolution must be and is held void. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant be ousted from the claimed power of causing the official ballot for the coming November election to be printed in accordance with said resolution, or in any form, so as to submit the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electors of the state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Robinson v. Fluent
... ... Stanbery ... Foster, of Olympia, Sp. Asst. to Smith Troy, Atty. Gen., for ... respondent ... Caughlan ... & Hatten, of Seattle, for ... Crane, ... 1 W.Va. 176, State ex rel. Attorney General v ... Kinney, 56 Ohio St. 721, 47 N.E. 569, and Barry v ... Viall, 12 R.I. 18, which held that a ... ...
-
Cleveland Terminal & Valley Railroad Co. v. State
...174 Ill. 445; San Antonio v. Micklejohn, 89 Tex. 82; Rice, Auditor, v. State, 95 Ind. 46; Blanchard v. Bissel, 11 Ohio St. 103; State v. Kinney, 56 Ohio St. 724; Hunt Lambertville, 45 N. 1. L., 281; Newman v. Emporia, 32 Kans., 463; 34 Cyc., 1667; Mullan v. State, 114 Cal. 578; May v. Rice,......
-
State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown
...such special election on a certain date by a joint resolution without enacting a statute. In State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Kinney, Secy. of State (1897), 56 Ohio St. 721, 47 N.E. 569 (cited in the dissenting opinion), which involved Section 2 of Article XVI as in force before 1912, th......
- State Ex Rel. Mccarthy v. Watson.