State ex rel. Fox v. Raine
Citation | 49 Ohio St. 580,31 N.E. 741 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. Fox v. RAINE, Auditor, et al. |
Decision Date | 28 June 1892 |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
49 Ohio St. 580
31 N.E. 741
STATE ex rel. Fox
v.
RAINE, Auditor, et al.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
June 28, 1892.
Error to circuit court, Hamilton county.
The court of common pleas sustained a demurrer to the petition. The cause was then appealed to the circuit, where the same ruling was made, and the petition dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings to obtain a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court.
A statute, whatever terms it may employ, the only effect of which is to increase the salary attached to a public office, contravenes section 20 of article 2 of the constitution of this state, in so far as it may affect the salary of an incumbent of the office during the term he was serving when the statute was enacted.
[Ohio St. 581]I. J. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
Davidson & Hertenstein and Rufus B. Smith, for defendants in error.
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought by a taxpayer of Hamilton county to test the constitutional operation of section 897 a of the Revised Statutes, passed March 8, 1888, (85 Ohio Laws, 76.) This section only applies to Hamilton county, and is in the following terms: ‘Sec. 897 a. In counties in which, by the last federal census, the population amounted to two hundred and fifty thousand, or upwards, each commissioner shall be allowed for expenses incurred by said commissioner, in the proper discharge of his duties within said county, the sum of ($1,000) one thousand dollars per annum. Said sum to be paid out of the county treasury on the warrant of the county auditor.’ ‘Sec. 2. This act shall take effect on and after its passage. Passed March 8, 1888. Volume 85, p. 76.’ The constitutionality of this statute is assailed upon the ground that it increases the salary of the county commissioners of Hamilton county during the terms for which they had been elected, and for that reason contravenes section 20 of article 2 of the constitution of 1851, which reads as follows: ‘Sec. 20. The general assembly, in cases not provided for in this constitution, shall fix the term of office and the compensation of all officers, but no change therein shall affect the salary of any officer during his existing term, unless the office be abolished.’ This section of the constitution, as will be observed, denies to the general assembly power to affect the ‘salary’ [Ohio St. 582]of any officer during his existing term...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greene v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 95790.
...Court of Ohio recognized, this constitutional provision is applicable to statutory county offices. State ex rel. Fox v. Raine (1892), 49 Ohio St. 580, 31 N.E. 741 (county commissioners); State ex rel. Mikus v. Roberts (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 253, 239 N.E.2d 660 (county engineer). {¶ 34} Thus,......
-
Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.
...176 P. 490 65 Colo. 443 LECKENBY, State Auditor, et al. v. POST PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO. No. 9328.Supreme Court of Colorado, En ... Ala. 143, 30 So. 453; Jefferson Co. v. Waters, 114 Ky. 48, 70 ... S.W. 40; State v. Raine, 49 Ohio St. 580, 31 N.E. 741 ... Mileage ... or traveling expenses paid to the ... officials can be included in the general appropriation bill ... People ex rel. v. Spruance, 8 Colo. 307, 6 P. 831; In re ... Appropriations, 13 Colo. 316, 22 P. 464; ... ...
-
Hall v. Blan
... 148 So. 601 227 Ala. 64 HALL v. BLAN, State Treasurer. 3 Div. 48. Supreme Court of Alabama April 27, 1933 ... Rehearing ... Denied ... Jones v. Hoss, ... Secretary of State, 132 Or. 175, 285 P. 205; State ... ex rel. Banker, State Representative, v. Clausen, State ... Auditor, 142 Wash. 450, 253 P. 805; Dixon ... Ferguson, State Treasurer, ... 164 Ark. 254, 261 S.W. 624; State ex rel. Fox v. Raine, ... Auditor, 49 Ohio St. 580, 31 N.E. 741; Fergus v ... Russel, 270 Ill. 304, 110 N.E. 130, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Payne v. Reeves
...176 Pac. 490;Terrell v. Middleton (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 367;Bailey v. Kelly, 70 Kan. 869, 79 Pac. 735;State ex rel. Fox v. Raine, 49 Ohio St. 580, 31 N. E. 741;Cullom v. Dolloff, 94 Ill. 330;People ex rel. Bolton v. Albertson, 55 N. Y. 50. Attention of this court has not been called to......