State ex rel. Ranz v. City of Youngstown

• Decision Date: 09 December 1942
• Docket Number: 29294.
• Citation: 45 N.E.2d 767,140 Ohio St. 477
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RANZ v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

45 N.E.2d 767

140 Ohio St. 477

STATE ex rel. RANZ v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al.

No. 29294.

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 9, 1942

Syllabus by the Court.

1. There is no common-law obligation on the part of any public authority to grant poor relief.

2. Relief of the poor is a state function and authority for levying taxes or expending public funds therefor by local authorities must be found in general laws enacted by the General Assembly

3. A county which has not adopted a charter or alternative form of government is a wholly subordinate political division or instrumentality for serving the state.

4. A county embraces the territory within the municipalities located within the county.

5. A county may transfer to a city within the county or a city may transfer to the county in which the city is located funds for poor relief without obligation for repayment. Section 5625-13h, General Code.

6. Under Section 3391-1, General Code, the legislative authority of a city on the one part and the board of county commissioners of the county in which the city is located on the other part may enter into a contract whereby the board of county commissioners is authorized to act as local relief authority for and in behalf of the city.

7. An agreement between the board of county commissioners and a city located within the county authorizing the board of county commissioners to act as local relief authority for and in behalf of the city, if entered into prior to the first day of July in any year, may provide that, for the purpose of tax levies and poor relief and the appropriation and expenditure thereof, for one or more next ensuing fiscal years, the city shall be a part of the county local relief area, in which event such city shall not for the duration of such contract have power to levy taxes for poor relief. Section 3391-1 General Code.

8. Where an agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 3391-1, General Code, between the legislative authority of a city and the board of county commissioners, whereby the board of county commissioners is authorized to act as local relief authority for and in behalf of the city, there is no statutory provision requiring the city to reimburse the county for such poor relief expenditures made by the board of county commissioners within the limits of the city.

9. Section 2450-3, General Code, does not prescribe a mandatory form requiring payments to be made by the contracting subdivision into the county treasury. It does prescribe a mandatory form to be followed in case the agreement provides for such payments.

10. Where a first cause of action in a petition seeks to compel reimbursement of the county treasury be a city for expenditures for poor relief made by the county commissioners within the limits of a city under an agreement with the city made pursuant to Section 3391-1, General Code and it is alleged in such cause of action that the agreement does not provide for such reimbursement, such cause of action is subject to demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts which show a cause of action.

11. Where such petition contains a second cause of action which, after incorporating by reference the foregoing first cause of action, alleges that the county commissioners have issued and sold and would continue to issue and sell notes of the county secured by a pledge of the county's share of delinquent taxes, for the purpose of securing funds to pay for and carry on poor relief within a city in such county, and which seeks to enjoin such action by the board of county commissioners, such petition is subject to demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts which show a cause of action.

Appeal from Court of Appeals, Mahoning County.

Relator, a taxpayer, filed his petition in the Common Pleas Court of Mahoning county against the city of Youngstown, county commissioners, county auditor and treasurer of Mahoning county, alleging that the city of Youngstown and the commissioners of Mahoning county on the 24th day of June 1939, entered into a written contract effective as of the 1st day of July, 1939, by the terms of which it was agreed that the administration of relief within the territorial limits of the city of Youngstown should be handled and administered on behalf of the city by the county commissioners pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3391 et seq. and 2450 et seq., General Code. It was averred that the contract provided that the commissioners should finance and pay for such relief according to law and should have authority to levy a special tax for poor relief or submit the question to the electors, and that the contract contained no provision for defining the manner in which or the method by which the city should pay for poor relief furnished to the city in the event no poor relief levy was made by the commissioners.

It was alleged that the county commissioners financed the cost of poor relief in the city of Youngstown, except that part of the cost contributed by the Department of Public Welfare, and that such board has not levied a tax for poor relief and has made no demand upon the city of Youngstown to pay the cost of such relief. No steps have been taken to levy a tax for poor relief, either within or without the 10-mill limitation.

Relator prayed for an accounting between the county and the city with respect to the aforesaid expenditures and for judgment against the city of Youngstown, and in the alternative that the commissioners be compelled to make an annual levy for poor relief within the city of Youngstown for the purpose of reimbursing Mahoning county.

For a second cause of action, relator alleged that the county commissioners have issued and sold (and would continue to issue and sell) notes of Mahoning county secured by pledges of the county's share of delinquent taxes, and will use the proceeds to finance poor relief in the city of Youngstown unless enjoined.

Relator prayed that the commissioners be enjoined from the sale of any notes or other forms of obligation of Mahoning county, whether secured by a pledge of its delinquent taxes or otherwise, or unsecured, for the financing of poor relief, so long as the contract between the city and county is in force, and unless the city shall pay the county all moneys expended by the county for poor relief in the city.

A demurrer to the petition was filed by the defendants and sustained by the Court of Common Pleas. The relator not desiring to amend his petition or plead further, the petition was dismissed and relator appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

The cause is here following the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

John A. Willo, Director of Law, Homer E. Carlyle, and Israel Freeman, all of Youngstown, for appellants.

Henderson, Ranz & Henderson and Albert J. Williams, all of Youngstown, for appellee.

TURNER Judge.

The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the petition states facts which show a cause of action.

As stated by the Court of Appeals: 'What was the legislative purpose and intent in enacting General Code Sections 3391 et seq., and providing therein that such contract as the one in question might be entered into by the city and county? Was it to change the statutory provisions that each subdivision must care for its own poor?'

As phrased by appellee: 'The only question here presented is whether or not the county commissioners of a county in which a city is located may, pursuant to Sections 3391 et seq. and 3476 of the General Code, administer poor relief in such city at the sole expense of the county.'

While both parties have referred to Section 1 of Article X of the Constitution, they agree that there is no constitutional question involved. With the exception of the phrase, 'The general assembly shall provide by general law for the organization and government of counties,' no part of Section 1 of Article X is applicable for the reasons:

1. Mahoning county has not adopted a charter or alternative form of government; and

2. The General Assembly has not indicated the use of this section by securing to the people of a county the rights of initiative and referendum in respect of the measures adopted.

We agree with the court below that 'To determine that question [the sufficiency of the petition] we must look solely to the petition and the applicable statutes, and if either or both causes of action set out therein constitute a cause or causes of action the demurrer must be overruled.'

Before proceeding to the statutes immediately involved, it will be helpful to make a brief reference to the background.

As stated in 31 Ohio Jurisprudence 43, Section 2: 'At common law there was no obligation resting upon a community to aid poor or unfortunate people. The whole subject of relieving the poor is of statutory origin; and where it is done in pursuance of municipal law, it also depends upon statutory regulations.'

In the case of State ex rel. Walton v. Edmondson, Aud., 89 Ohio St. 351, 360, 106 N.E. 41, 44, Judge Johnson said: 'In fact, the entire system for the establishment and maintenance of benevolent institutions and benevolent works of the state has proceeded upon the idea that the Legislature, in the exercise of its general legislative power, was vested with authority to do whatever in its judgment the public welfare demanded, always provided that the thing done should be for a public purpose and should not take public money for the advancement of a purely private object.'

That poor relief is a state function does not admit of argument. If there were any doubt, it ought to be dispelled quickly by an examination of the many statutes upon the subject and especially the appropriation of various excise...