State ex rel. Turner v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. of Baltimore, No. 15083.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtNICHOLS
Citation96 Ohio St. 250,117 N.E. 232
Decision Date17 April 1917
Docket NumberNo. 15083.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. TURNER, Atty. Gen., v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. OF BALTIMORE, MD.

96 Ohio St. 250
117 N.E. 232

STATE ex rel. TURNER, Atty. Gen.,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.
OF BALTIMORE, MD.

No. 15083.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 17, 1917.


Quo warranto by the State, on relation of Edward C. Turner, Attorney General, against the United States Fidelity & Casualty Company of Baltimore, Md. Demurrer overruled, and petition dismissed.

Facts are stated in the opinion.



Syllabus by the Court

Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (103 Ohio Laws, 80), now section 1465-69, General Code, authorizing ‘employers who will abide by the rules of the state liability board of awards and as may be of sufficient financial ability or credit to render certain the payment of compensation’ to injured or killed employés or their dependents, to pay individually the compensation provided in the act directly to injured employés or the dependents of killed employés, is a valid legislative enactment, and is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the state or federal Constitutions.


[Ohio St. 250]Edward C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Geo.
B. Okey, Timothy S. Hogan, and Hanby R. Jones, all of Columbus, for relator.

Booth, Keating, Peters & Pomerene, of Columbus, for defendant.


NICHOLS, C. J.

This is one of a series of proceedings in quo warranto instituted by the Attorney General in his official capacity for the purpose of ousting certain indemnity insurance companies from exercising the franchise of writing within [Ohio St. 251]the state of Ohio insurance to indemnify employers against loss or damage for personal injury or death resulting from accident to employés. In its answer the defendant admits that it is entering into contracts with employers in Ohio, who elect and are duly authorized by law to pay the compensation and furnish the medical, surgical, nursing, and hospital attention, services, medicines, and funeral expenses directly to injured employés, or to the dependents of such employés as may be killed. Denial is made of the charge that the policies issued by the defendant cover any liability on account of any injury to employés by the willful act of any employer, or the failure of such employer to observe any lawful requirements for the safety of his employés.

The Attorney General demurs to the answer. Several grounds are set forth, only one of which, however, the second, is necessary to be considered to determine the rights of the parties to this action. In this particular case the issue is a narrow one, confined, indeed, to one question, namely, the constitutionality of section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (103 O. L. 72); for, by the second specification of the demurrer of the Attorney General, the constitutionality of section 22 (section 1465-69, General Code) is directly challenged, and likewise the right of any employers to pay compensation directly to their employés, or to be indemnified therefor by contract with insurance companies. The section in question, briefly stated, authorizes employers who will abide by the rules of the state [Ohio St. 252]liability board of awards and as may be of sufficient financial ability or credit to render certain the payment of compensation to injured or killed employés or their dependents, to pay individually the compensation provided in the act directly to injured employés or the dependents of killed employés.

The charge is made that section 22 is unconstitutional, null, and void because: First. It contravenes the provision of section 35 of article II of the Constitution of Ohio, the section authorizing the passage by the General Assembly of a compulsory workmen's compensation act. Second. It is violative of section 2 of article I of the Constitution of Ohio, wherein it is stated that ‘political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit.’

[117 N.E. 233]

Third. Because it is irreconcilably inconsistent with section 26, article II of the Constitution of Ohio, providing that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the state. Fourth. Because of its repugnancy to the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, especially that part wherein the amendment forbids any state of the Union denying to any person equal protection of the laws.

The first of this series of objections is supported by argument to the effect that the constitutional amendment granting power to the General Assembly to enact a compulsory compensation act provided [Ohio St. 253]the exclusive method by which compensation should be gathered and dispensed. It is claimed that section 22 denies to a part of the workmen of the state permission to participate in the fund, and excuses a portion of the employers of the state from compulsory contribution to the fund, while all others are compelled to contribute. The doctrine of ‘expressio...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. City of Youngstown
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • November 19, 1951
    ...the other by reason of the classification. State ex rel. Turner, Atty. Gen. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, 96 Ohio St. 250, 255, 117 N.E. 232. A classification which undertakes to arbitrarily separate some persons from others upon which the act would operate and ......
  • State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, No. 34194
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 27, 1955
    ...this court was discussed as follows by Nichols, C. J., in the case of State ex rel. Turner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 96 Ohio St. 250, 258, 117 N.E. 232, 'In this connection it is proper to observe that under the present Constitution the Supreme Court of Ohio has been cle......
  • Allen v. Eastman Kodak Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 3, 1976
    ...sustained in his employment. Example of such cases propounding such law are State ex rel. Turner v. United States Fidelity Co. (1917), 96 Ohio St. 250, 117 N.E. 232; State ex rel. Engle v. Indus. Comm. (1944), 142 Ohio St. 425, 52 N.E.2d 743; Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. (1947), 1......
  • Ginnochio v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 1804.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • April 14, 1920
    ...the second subdivisions of sections 21 and 22, the first subdivision of section 25, sections 23, 26, and 29, and State v. Fidelity Co., 96 Ohio St. 250, 117 N.E. 232. It is true that under the second subdivision of section 25 a noncontributing employer may, by reason of some rule or regulat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. City of Youngstown
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • November 19, 1951
    ...on the other by reason of the classification. State ex rel. Turner, Atty. Gen. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, 96 Ohio St. 250, 255, 117 N.E. 232. A classification which undertakes to arbitrarily separate some persons from others upon which the act would operate and t......
  • State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, No. 34194
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 27, 1955
    ...on this court was discussed as follows by Nichols, C. J., in the case of State ex rel. Turner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 96 Ohio St. 250, 258, 117 N.E. 232, 'In this connection it is proper to observe that under the present Constitution the Supreme Court of Ohio has been clea......
  • Allen v. Eastman Kodak Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 3, 1976
    ...sustained in his employment. Example of such cases propounding such law are State ex rel. Turner v. United States Fidelity Co. (1917), 96 Ohio St. 250, 117 N.E. 232; State ex rel. Engle v. Indus. Comm. (1944), 142 Ohio St. 425, 52 N.E.2d 743; Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. (1947), 1......
  • Ginnochio v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 1804.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • April 14, 1920
    ...the second subdivisions of sections 21 and 22, the first subdivision of section 25, sections 23, 26, and 29, and State v. Fidelity Co., 96 Ohio St. 250, 117 N.E. 232. It is true that under the second subdivision of section 25 a noncontributing employer may, by reason of some rule or regulat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT