State ex rel. Hess v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hess v. Smith

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1927

DocketNo. 19998; No. 19999

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365 (State ex rel. Hess v. Smith) 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

State ex rel. Hess v. Smith, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

1. Section 5401 and Section 5624-13, General Code, are in pari materia and should be so construed. The former can be harmonized with the latter and each of them given effect by the withdrawal of banking and financial institutions from the procedure authorized by Section 5401, General Code.

2. Section 5624-13, General Code, (107 O. L. 44), the later act, provides that nothing in the act of which it is a part, shall be so construed as to authorize a county auditor “to examine the accounts or records of any banking” institution. Under the provisions of that section, the cashier of a bank is immune from punishment, as for contempt, because of his refusal to produce the bank records under his control, or to give testimony as to what such records show relating to the state of the account of one of its depositors.

Judgment affirmed.

Day, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

JONES, J.

1. Section 5401 and Section 5624-13, General Code, are in pari materia and should be so construed. The former can be harmonized with the latter and each of them given effect by the withdrawal of banking and financial institutions from the procedure authorized by Section 5401, General Code.

2. Section 5624-13, General Code, (107 O. L. 44), the later act, provides that nothing in the act of which it is a part, shall be so construed as to authorize a county auditor “to examine the accounts or records of any banking” institution. Under the provisions of that section, the cashier of a bank is immune from punishment, as for contempt, because of his refusal to produce the bank records under his control, or to give testimony as to what such records show relating to the state of the account of one of its depositors.

Judgment affirmed.

Day, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hess-v-smith-ohio-1927.