State Ex Rel, Lentz v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 23 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 14499 |
| Parties | The State, Ex Rel. Lentz, Civil Service Commission v. Edwards Et Al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Office and officers - Civil service - Home rule charter provisions supersede state law, when - Constitutional law - Section 10 Article XV, and Article XVIII, Constitution of 1912 - Section 486-1 et seq., General Code.
IN QUO WARRANTO.
This was a proceeding in quo warranto brought in this court. The petition of the relators avers that they are the duly appointed, qualified and acting civil service commissioners of the city of Dayton, appointed under authority of Section 4478, General Code, with authority to ho]d said offices until their successors are appointed and qualified; that they are authorized to exercise the powers and duties of the civil service commission of the city of Dayton as enumerated in Chapter 12, Subdivision 2, Divi- sion 5 Title 12, Part First of the General Code, and in the act entitled "An act to regulate the civil service of the state of ohio," etc., passed April 28, 1913 (103 O. L 698 et seq.); that notwithstanding the foregoing facts the respondents, Edwards, Oswald and Smith, have usurped and unlawfully hold and exercise said offices, and as such usurping officers assume to do and perform all and singular the duties pertaining to the office of the commissioners of the civil service of the city of Dayton and to exclude relators from the emoluments thereof, to the exclusion and against the rights of relators and to the great injury of the citizens of the state of Ohio and the city of Dayton; that respondents are illegally usurping said offices and duties under appointment as such civil service commissioners by the commissioners elected under a local charter adopted for the city of Dayton; that said charter was adopted by the electors of said city on the 12th day of August, 1913, under Article XVIII of the Constitution of Ohio; that a copy of said charter was duly certified to the secretary of state as required by law; that for the purpose of establishing departments, division, and offices and distributing the functions thereof and all purposes other than nominating and electing officers to act as commissioners under said charter the terms of said charter took effect on the 1st day of January, 1914; that said charter Was prepared and adopted under authority of Sections 3,7,8 and 9 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of the state of Ohio as distinguished from the other methods of Organization of government of municipal corporations contained in said Article XVIII; that by the terms of said charter the legislative functions of said municipality were delegated to a commission of five citizens elected at large by the people Of said city; that the terms of said charter provide further for the appointment by the commission of a city manager, who shall be the administrative head of the city, who shall have all the appointing power under said charter Of all directors and departments and all subordinate officers and employes classified and unclassified, by the civil service system adopted under said charter. The petition sets forth the provisions of the charter for civil service. Section 93 thereof provides that the commission shall appoint three electors of the city as a civil service board to take office January 1, 1914; that the commission of said city appointed respondents as a civil service board or commission with powers and duties superseding the powers and duties of the relators under the state laws as alleged; relators further say that the respondents and the commission manager refused to recognize the relators or their authority as conferred upon then, as aforesaid, claiming that the provisions of the charter aforesaid, as adopted, superseded and annulled the provisions of the general law on the subject of civil service. The prayer of the petition is that the respondents Edwards, Oswald and Smith, be required to answer by what warrant and authority they claim to have, exercise and enjoy the office of civil service commissioners of the city of Dayton; that they be adjudged not entitled thereto; that judgment of ouster be pronounced against them and that relators may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial