State ex rel. Landis v. Bd. of Com'rs of Butler Cnty.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Citation: 115 N.E. 919,95 Ohio St. 157
• Docket Number: No. 15233.,15233.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LANDIS v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF BUTLER COUNTY et al.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1917

95 Ohio St. 157
115 N.E. 919

STATE ex rel. LANDIS
v.
BOARD OF COM'RS OF BUTLER COUNTY et al.

No. 15233.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 9, 1917.

Error to Court of Appeals, Butler County.

Action by the State, on the relation of Samuel C. Landis, taxpayer, against the Board of Commissioners of Butler County and others to enjoin the misapplication of public funds. From a judgment of the Court of Appeals, on appeal from the court of common pleas, denying the relief sought, plaintiff brings error. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.

On October 16, 1915, the board of county commissioners of Butler county, Ohio, adopted a resolution reciting that it deemed it ‘necessary to have a clerk who can devote his entire time to the discharge of the duties of such position,’ and that ‘commencing October 18, 1915, W. W. Crawford be and is hereby employed as clerk of this board at a salary of $125 per month, payable monthly. Such clerk shall perform the duties required by law and the board.’

The action originated in the court of common pleas, and was instituted by Samuel C. Landis, as a taxpayer, seeking to enjoin the misapplication of public funds. On appeal to the Court of Appeals that court denied the relief sought. Whereupon plaintiff in error instituted his action in this court to reverse that judgment.

Syllabus by the Court

The employment of a clerk by a board of county commissioners under section 2409, General Code, is valid. Such appointee is not a county officer, and the Code section, therefore, is not in conflict with section 2, article 10 of the state Constitution.

An appointee, though his duties are specifically fixed by law, if such duties do not require the exercise of political or governmental functions as a part of the sovereignty of the state, but simply involve the exercise of clerical acts in recording the transactions of officers who are invested with such functions, is not such a public or county officer as contemplated by the state Constitution.

[Ohio St. 158]Andrews & Andrews, of Hamilton, for plaintiff in error.

W. C. Shepherd and Ben A. Bickley, Pros. Atty., both of Hamilton, for defendants in error.

JONES, J.

[1] The statute under which the board of county commissioners acted is section 2409, General Code, and reads as follows:

‘If such board finds it necessary for the clerk to devote his entire time to the discharge of the duties of such position, it may appoint a clerk in place of the county auditor and such necessary assistants to such clerk as the board deems necessary. Such clerk shall perform the duties required by law and by the board.’

The relator claims that this statute authorizing the appointment of a clerk is unconstitutional for the reason that it is in conflict with section 2, article 10, of the state Constitution, which provides as follows:

‘County officers shall be elected * * * by the electors of each county in such manner, and for such term, not exceeding three years, as may be provided by law.’

It is claimed by the relator that, since the clerical duties imposed upon the clerk had formerly been part of the statutory and official duties of the auditor, the appointee of the board should be held to be a county officer, and, as such, under the terms of [Ohio St. 159]the foregoing section of the Constitution, should be elected.

Is Crawford, the...