State, Ex Rel., v. Whartenby, 23793
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 126 Ohio St. 209,185 N.E. 59 |
| Docket Number | 23793 |
| Parties | The State, Ex Rel. Vandenbark, v. Whartenby. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1933 |
185 N.E. 59
126 Ohio St. 209
The State, Ex Rel. Vandenbark,
v.
Whartenby.
No. 23793
Supreme Court of Ohio
February 23, 1933
Schools -- Board of education -- Vacancy by member removing from district -- Probate court to fill vacancy -- Sections 4748 and 7610-1, General Code -- Quo warranto.
IN QUO WARRANTO.Mr. Clarence J. Crossland and Messrs. Pugh & Van Devoort, for relator.
Mr. John C. Bassett, for respondent.
This matter coming on to be heard upon the application of the relator for a writ of ouster, was argued by counsel and submitted to the court; upon consideration whereof, said application is denied, for the reason [126 Ohio St. 210] that under the record the evidence shows that Vandenbark had removed from the district, within the meaning of Section 4748, General Code, and the probate court, by virtue of Section 7610-1, General Code, had lawful right to fill such vacancy, as he did.
Writ denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY, STEPHENSON, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.
ALLEN and KINKADE, JJ., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Ex Rel., v. Ring, 23826
...to the same extent and in the same manner as valid acts of de jure officers. The record shows no charges against Ring; nor is there [126 Ohio St. 209] any affirmative showing that he was not qualified to discharge the duties of the office of county superintendent. True, controversy existed ......
-
State, Ex Rel., v. Ring, 23826
...to the same extent and in the same manner as valid acts of de jure officers. The record shows no charges against Ring; nor is there [126 Ohio St. 209] any affirmative showing that he was not qualified to discharge the duties of the office of county superintendent. True, controversy existed ......