State ex rel. Gerspacher v. Coffinberry
| Decision Date | 27 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 31620,31620 |
| Citation | 104 N.E.2d 1,157 Ohio St. 32 |
| Parties | , 47 O.O. 31 STATE ex rel. GERSPACHER v. COFFINBERRY et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy the essential purpose of which is to command the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Before the writ may properly issue, the relator's right thereto must be clear. The writ will not issue in a doubtful case or where the effect of its issuance would be to control the discretion of the one against whom it would be directed.
2. The members of the Industrial Commission of Ohio are state officers vested with broad discretion in the performance of their duties, and their actions in the field assigned them by statute are presumed to be in all respects valid and in the exercise of good faith and sound judgment.
3. The issuance of a writ of mandamus rests largely within the sound discretion of the court, and where, in a class suit against the members of the Industrial Commission, a writ is demanded to require them, under the provisions of Section 1465-55 General Code, to refund and pay to all the contributors to the Public Fund of the Industrial Commission all monies collected in excess of the premium requirements, and, where, upon the record, a doubt arises as to relator's right to the writ and the form it should take if issued and whether if it were issued in substantial conformity with the relator's demands a desirable or beneficial public purpose would be served, the writ will be denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Kuth & Meyers, Cleveland, for relator.
Herbert S. Duffy and C. William O'Neill, Attys. Gen., T. Vincent Martin, Robert W. Beamer and R. Brooke Alloway, all of Columbus, for respondents.
This is an action in mandamus brought in this court wherein Clarence Gerspacher, a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Cleveland, 'on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers in the state of Ohio similarly situated' seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the three members of the Industrial Commission of Ohio 'to refund and pay to all of the contributors of said public employees' fund of the Industrial Commission of the state of Ohio, all moneys collected by said Industrial Commission in excess of their premium requirements as provided by law.'
The amended petition contains the general statement and conclusion 'that the various public corporate bodies, contributors to the public employees' fund, are entitled to a refund from the Industrial Commission fund in an amount in excess of two million dollars * * * the exact sum being unknown to this relator, * * * which sum has been and is being withheld from the contributors to said public employees' fund in violation of the laws of the state of Ohio and of the rules promulgated by said commission and in derogation of the rights of this relator, a taxpayer.'
Such amended petition is met by an answer, which, after certain formal admissions, further admits that 'the said Industrial Commission has been and is collecting premiums from the state, the cities, including the city of Cleveland, the townships, the incorporated villages and the school districts of the state of Ohio, as provided in Section 1465-59 of the General Code of Ohio, to provide compensation for injuries to the employees of said public corporate bodies as required by law.'
The answer then specifically denies that the public corporate bodies described have been or are paying into the public employees' fund amounts in excess of their premium requirements; denies that such bodies are entitled to a refund in any amount or that any sum has been or is being unlawfully or wrongfully withheld from them; and denies generally all the material allegations of the amended petition not specifically admitted.
In conclusion, the answer sets forth two numbered defenses. In the first it is stated that the amended petition does 'not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,' and in the second it is alleged 'that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action.'
The controversy is submitted for decision upon the amended petition, the answer and certain stipulations, devoted largely to tabulations of figures showing the assets and liabilities on various dates of the Public Fund and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 85-1608
...of its duties, and its actions are presumed to be valid and performed in good faith and sound judgment. State, ex rel. Gerspacher, v. Coffinberry (1952), 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N.E.2d 1 , paragraph two of the syllabus. Further, " * * * [w]here a section of the Workmen's Compensation Act will ......
-
Solether v. Ohio Turnpike Commission
...Metropolitan Park Dist., 125 Ohio St. 336, 181 N.E. 483; Bloch v. Glander, 151 Ohio St. 381, 86 N.E. 318; State ex rel. Gerspacher v. Coffinberry, 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N.E.2d 1. The Supreme Court of the state has determined in State ex rel. Ohio Turnpike Commission v. Allen, 158 Ohio St. 16......
-
Colbert v. Coney Island, Inc.
...consistently followed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the citations referred to above and more recently in State ex rel. Gerspacher v. Coffinberry, 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N.E.2d 1, and Masetta v. National, etc., Foundry Co., 159 Ohio St. 306, 112 N.E.2d 15, reversing Ohio App., 107 N.E.2d 243......
-
State, ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...commission acted in good faith and properly performed its function in reviewing the evidence before it. State, ex rel. Gerspacher, v. Coffinberry (1952), 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N.E.2d 1 , paragraph two of the syllabus. See, also, State, ex rel. Shafer, v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio ......