Fullwood v. City of Canton

Ohio Supreme Court

Fullwood v. City of Canton

158 N.E. 171, 116 Ohio St. 732, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 732, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 140, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 346

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1927

Docket20173 and 20174

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 N.E. 171 (Fullwood v. City of Canton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fullwood v. City of Canton, 158 N.E. 171, 116 Ohio St. 732, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 732, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 140, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 346 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

These causes come to this court on error from the Court of Appeals of Stark county and involve the validity of a city ordinance of the city of Canton, Ohio. The causes were heard on appeal in the Court of Appeals and that court adjudged the ordinance to be constitutional. Two of the members of this court, Jones and Matthias, JJ., hold that the ordinance does not violate any of the limitations of the Constitution of Ohio. Five members of this court, Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., hold that the ordinance does not operate equally upon all the members of a given class, and further that the ordinance improperly limits the freedom . of contract. Three members of this court, Day, Allen and Robinson, *733 JJ., are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 2. of Article IV, requiring the concurrence of at least all but one of the judges to declare a law to be unconstitutional and void, applies to ordinances of municipalities.

Four members of this court, Marshall, C. J., Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., hold that an ordinance of a municipality is not a law within the meaning of Section 2 of Article IV, but Jones and Matthias, JJ., holding this particular ordinance to be constitutional, cannot consistently join in a judgment of reversal.

There being more than one member of this court holding the ordinance to be constitutional and there not being as many as four members of this court who hold that an ordinance is not a law who are at the same time concurring in a judgment of reversal, it follows that there is an insufficient number of judges concurring upon the points of law necessary to a reversal, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

These causes come to this court on error from the Court of Appeals of Stark county and involve the validity of a city ordinance of the city of Canton, Ohio. The causes were heard on appeal in the Court of Appeals and that court adjudged the ordinance to be constitutional. Two of the members of this court, Jones and Matthias, JJ., hold that the ordinance does not violate any of the limitations of the Constitution of Ohio. Five members of this court, Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., hold that the ordinance does not operate equally upon all the members of a given class, and further that the ordinance improperly limits the freedom . of contract. Three members of this court, Day, Allen and Robinson, *733 JJ., are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 2. of Article IV, requiring the concurrence of at least all but one of the judges to declare a law to be unconstitutional and void, applies to ordinances of municipalities.

Four members of this court, Marshall, C. J., Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., hold that an ordinance of a municipality is not a law within the meaning of Section 2 of Article IV, but Jones and Matthias, JJ., holding this particular ordinance to be constitutional, cannot consistently join in a judgment of reversal.

There being more than one member of this court holding the ordinance to be constitutional and there not being as many as four members of this court who hold that an ordinance is not a law who are at the same time concurring in a judgment of reversal, it follows that there is an insufficient number of judges concurring upon the points of law necessary to a reversal, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 171, 116 Ohio St. 732, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 732, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 140, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullwood-v-city-of-canton-ohio-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack