State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Lynch
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | SHAUCK |
| Citation | 101 N.E. 352,87 Ohio St. 444 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CITY OF TOLEDO v. LYNCH, Auditor. |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1913 |
87 Ohio St. 444
101 N.E. 352
STATE ex rel. CITY OF TOLEDO
v.
LYNCH, Auditor.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Feb. 25, 1913.
Application by the State on relation of the City of Toledo against Lynch, Auditor, for leave to file an original petition in mandamus. Application dismissed.
The rule of constitutional interpretation that, a purpose being clearly indicated, provisions should, so far as their terms will permit, be so construed as to further that purpose will not justify a court in denying the plain meaning of an unambiguous provision because of the belief that its natural consequences could not have been intended.
The prohibition in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, effective January 1, 1913, that ‘no law shall be passed or rule made whereby any person shall be prevented from invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,’ is effective to annul the requirement heretofore made of leave to file original petitions in the Supreme Court.
[Ohio St. 445]Cornell Schreiber, City Sol., and Alonzo G. Duer, Asst. City Sol., both of Toledo, for the application.
SHAUCK, C. J.
The city solicitor of the city of Toledo, with the approval of the Attorney General of the state, makes this application
[101 N.E. 353]
for leave to file a petition to invoke our original jurisdiction in mandamus to compel the defendant to transfer on his records the sum of $1,000 from the general funds of said city to the department of public service in obedience to an ordinance passed by the council of that city, appropriating that sum for the purpose of establishing a municipal moving picture theater; it being assumed that such appropriation is authorized by the amendment of September, 1912, to the Constitution, to authorize ‘municipal home rule.’ A more particular statement of the allegations of the petition is not necessary because at present the questions arising out of the issues which they tender are superseded by a question of practice which arises out of the application for leave to file the petition.
The application is consonant with a practice long since established and consistently adhered to in this court to require leave to file petitions invoking the exercise of its original jurisdiction [Ohio St. 446]upon any of the subjects within that jurisdiction. So long and consistently has the practice been adhered to that, although its existence and effect are not stated in any formal rule, they have been well understood by more than a generation of lawyers who have been attentive to the course of practice here. In ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81,70 Am. Dec. 55, Judge Swan said: ‘The return of a writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission, No. 40506
...those courts by Sections 2 and 6, respectively, of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. (State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Lynch, Aud., 87 Ohio St. 444, 101 N.E. 352, and State ex rel. Selected Properties, Inc. v. Gottfried, 163 Ohio St. 469, 127 N.E.2d 371, approved and 3. When a petition st......
-
State ex rel. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. 2006-1678.
...file a mandamus action in the Supreme Court were thus required to seek leave to file the petition. State ex rel. Toledo v. Lynch (1913), 87 Ohio St. 444, 445-446, 101 N.E. 352 (application for leave to file mandamus action "is consonant with a practice long since established and consistentl......
-
State ex rel. Cullinan v. Board of Elections of Portage County
...impermissible under the last sentence of Section 2 of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. (State, ex rel. Toledo, v. Lynch, Aud., 87 Ohio St. 444, 101 N.E. 352; State, ex rel. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., v. Industrial Commission, 162 Ohio St. 302, 123 N.E.2d 23; State, ex rel. Killeen Rea......
-
Hughes v. Scaffide, No. 77-592
...court." State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631. See State ex rel. Toledo v. Lynch (1913), 87 Ohio St. 444, 446, 101 N.E. The question in the instant cause involves a habeas corpus action which was filed in the Court of Appeals and is before this cou......
-
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission, No. 40506
...those courts by Sections 2 and 6, respectively, of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. (State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Lynch, Aud., 87 Ohio St. 444, 101 N.E. 352, and State ex rel. Selected Properties, Inc. v. Gottfried, 163 Ohio St. 469, 127 N.E.2d 371, approved and 3. When a petition st......
-
State ex rel. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. 2006-1678.
...file a mandamus action in the Supreme Court were thus required to seek leave to file the petition. State ex rel. Toledo v. Lynch (1913), 87 Ohio St. 444, 445-446, 101 N.E. 352 (application for leave to file mandamus action "is consonant with a practice long since established and consistentl......
-
State ex rel. Cullinan v. Board of Elections of Portage County
...impermissible under the last sentence of Section 2 of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. (State, ex rel. Toledo, v. Lynch, Aud., 87 Ohio St. 444, 101 N.E. 352; State, ex rel. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., v. Industrial Commission, 162 Ohio St. 302, 123 N.E.2d 23; State, ex rel. Killeen Rea......
-
Hughes v. Scaffide, No. 77-592
...court." State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631. See State ex rel. Toledo v. Lynch (1913), 87 Ohio St. 444, 446, 101 N.E. The question in the instant cause involves a habeas corpus action which was filed in the Court of Appeals and is before this cou......