Diemer v. Hudson

Ohio Circuit Courts

Diemer v. Hudson

18 Ohio C.C. 890

DecidedOctober 15, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Ohio C.C. 890 (Diemer v. Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diemer v. Hudson, 18 Ohio C.C. 890 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, J.

The Saturday half holiday law, applicable to cities having a population of 50,000, or over, 92 O. L., 208,passed by oui legislature last spring, is unconstitutional.

This was a replevin case, and the claim was made that a writ made out and served on a Saturday afternoon was illegal. In the common pleas court Judge Dissette declared that the proceeding was illegal because the writ was served on a legal half-holiday; this declared the half-holiday law to be constitutional. The circuit court hold : The half-holiday law is one on a general subject. A general holiday is a subject of a nature pertaining to every part of'tbe state, and there is no natural distinction existing between those parts of the state that are subject to the law and those that are not. The law therefore is unconstitutional, and the writ was legal. See also note of same case, 87 Bull., 194.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CALDWELL, J.

The Saturday half holiday law, applicable to cities having a population of 50,000, or over, 92 O. L., 208,passed by oui legislature last spring, is unconstitutional.

This was a replevin case, and the claim was made that a writ made out and served on a Saturday afternoon was illegal. In the common pleas court Judge Dissette declared that the proceeding was illegal because the writ was served on a legal half-holiday; this declared the half-holiday law to be constitutional. The circuit court hold : The half-holiday law is one on a general subject. A general holiday is a subject of a nature pertaining to every part of'tbe state, and there is no natural distinction existing between those parts of the state that are subject to the law and those that are not. The law therefore is unconstitutional, and the writ was legal. See also note of same case, 87 Bull., 194.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ohio C.C. 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diemer-v-hudson-ohiocirct-1897.