Kaestle v. Urner, Aud.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kaestle v. Urner, Aud.

3 N.E.2d 989, 52 Ohio App. 524, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 609, 6 Ohio Op. 465, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 284

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 1935

DocketNo 4918

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.E.2d 989 (Kaestle v. Urner, Aud.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaestle v. Urner, Aud., 3 N.E.2d 989, 52 Ohio App. 524, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 609, 6 Ohio Op. 465, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 284 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By ROSS, PJ.

There is nothing in the statute which requires the employe of the city to do anything which can be considered beyond the power of the city to direct.

There is nothing in the record to show that the services renderd the city are not reasonably worth the salaries now sought to be enjoined.

*610 It- appears also in the agreed statement of facts that the receipts for costs paid into the Municipal Court exceed considerably the expenditures of the city properly chargeable to the court. The expense incident to the operation and maintenance of the Cincinnati Workhouse is an entirely immaterial consideration.

It is also stated in the agreed statement of facts that the County of Hamilton pays all of the salary- of the Clerk of Courts, who is Clerk of the Municipal Court, and such county pays a considerable sum toward defraying the salaries of Municipal Judges and prosecuting attorneys in such court.

It is our conclusion that it has not been shown that the provisions of the section of the Code — §1558-34, GC — are unconstitutional, or that the payment of the salaries are unwarranted in law.

A decree may be entered for the defendants.

MATTHEWS and HAMILTON, JJ, concur.

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