State ex rel. Foster v. Board of County Com'rs of Lucas County, 68-471

• Decision Date: 24 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 68-471,68-471
• Citation: 242 N.E.2d 884,16 Ohio St.2d 89,45 O.O.2d 442
• Parties: , 45 O.O.2d 442 The STATE ex rel. FOSTER, Judge, v. Wittenberg et al., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMRS. OF LUCAS COUNTY.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 89

16 Ohio St.2d 89

242 N.E.2d 884, 45 O.O.2d 442

The STATE ex rel. FOSTER, Judge, v. Wittenberg et al., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMRS. OF LUCAS COUNTY.

No. 68-471.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 24, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The administration of justice by the judicial branch of the government cannot be impeded by the other branches of the government in the exercise of their respective powers.

2. Courts of general jurisdiction, whether named in the Constitution or established pursuant to the provisions thereof, possess all powers necessary to secure and safeguard the free and untrammeled exercise of their judicial functions and cannot be directed, controlled or impeded therein by other branches of the government. (Paragraph two of the syllabus in Zangerle v. Court of Common Pleas, 141 Ohio St. 70, 46 N.E.2d 865, approved and followed.)

3. Under the provisions of Section 2151.10, Revised Code, determination of the necessary annual administrative expenses of the Juvenile Court lies solely within the sound discretion of the juvenile judge, and the Board of County Commissioners has no authority to substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile judge by appropriating an amount less than that requested.

This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. In this action, relator, judge of the Court of Common Pleas, seeks to compel respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Lucas County, to appropriate to him the balance of the amount he requested for the operation of the Juvenile Court branch of said court for the year 1968. Relator requested $1,145,159.25, and the commissioners appropriated $830,986, leaving a deficiency of $314,173.25.

A demurrer has been filed to the petition and, by agreement of the parties during oral argument before this court, the ruling on the demurrer will be dispositive of the action.

John J. Callahan, Charles E. Ide, Jr., and Howard C. Schwab, Toledo, for relator.

Harry Friberg, Pros. Atty., and John W. Winn, Jr., Toledo, for respondent.

MATTHIAS, Judge.

In his petition in the instant case, relator alleges that under Section 2151.10, Revised Code, there is a mandatory duty to appropriate the sums requested. He alleges also that respondent has funds from which it could have made the necessary and requested appropriations.

Respondent demurs on the ground that the petition does not state a cause of action. It is respondent's position that the failure to allege in the petition that the respondent presently has funds available for appropriation makes such petition subject to demurrer. The demurrer does not raise the question of the reasonableness of relator's request for funds. Therefore, that issue is not before this court.

The question actually raised by the parties has been before the court many times. It has been determined that a board of county commissioners has the mandatory duty to appropriate the funds requested by a judge unless he is guilty of an abuse of discretion in his request. State, ex rel. Clarke, v. Board of County Com'rs., 141 Ohio St. 16, 46 N.E.2d 410; State, ex rel. Motter, v. Atkinson, 146 Ohio St. 11, 63 N.E.2d 440; State, ex rel. Ray, v. South, 176 Ohio St. 241, 198 N.E.2d 919; and State, ex rel. Moorehead, v. Reed, 177 Ohio St. 4, 201 N.E.2d 594.

No question is raised by the demurrer in the instant case that the judge abused his discretion r that he needs such funds. Respondent relies solely on the failure to allege the present availability of funds.

At the time the request for funds was made by relator the monies were neither appropriated nor encumbered. The board had a mandatory duty at that time to comply with relator's request so long as it was reasonable. It cannot escape its duty by appropriating such funds to others, neither can it sue such prior appropriation as a defense in an action such as this. It had, and still has, a mandatory duty to comply with relator's request.

In discussing the duty of the board in such a case this court, in State, ex rel. Moorehead, v. Reed, supra, 6, 201 N.E.2d 595, said:

'Respondent urges that there are no unappropriated or unencumbered funds out of which the additional funds could be appropriated, and that to comply with relator's request would work an undue hardship and burden on other offices and agencies. This does not excuse respondent from fulfilling its mandatory duty. In State, ex rel. Motter, v. Atkinson, supra, (146 Ohio St.) 15, 63 N.E.2d 440, it is said in the course of the opinion:

"This court is of the opinion that this statute (present Section 2151.10, Revised Code) is likewise mandatory; that the amount of the administrative expenses of the court lies within the sound discretion of the juvenile judge; and that it is not a matter to be determined by the respondent. The action of the juvenile judge in this regard was not illegal, and it is the plain duty of the respondent to make the appropriations accordingly. State, ex rel. Clarke, Judge, v. Board of County Com'rs of Lawrence County, 141 Ohio St. 16, 46 N.E.2d 410.

"The hardship, if any, visited upon the operation of the other county offices through lack of funds resulting from the appropriation of the amounts requested by the probate judge for the operation of his offices, is a matter over which this court has no control, but is wholly within the province of the General Assembly.'

'Since relator's request for funds was...