State ex rel. McMahon v. Carlin

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

State ex rel. McMahon v. Carlin

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 111

DecidedMay 31, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 111 (State ex rel. McMahon v. Carlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit 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. McMahon v. Carlin, 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 111 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRY, J.

This is an. action in quo warranto to test the right of the relator and defendant respectively to hold the office of assessor in the eighth ward of the city of Cleveland. The relator claims to hold over because the defendant who was elected to succeed him in said office is disqualified by noncitizenship. Under Secs. 6762-6764 R. S. (Secs. 12305-12307 G. C.), the relator can not maintain this action unless he claims, with some color of ground, to be entitled to the office. His claim is evidently founded on See. 8 R. S. (See. 8 G. C.), but he has apparently overlooked Sec. 1518 Rev. Stat. (Sec. 3352 G. C.), which provides that a vacancy and not a holdover results when there is no duly elected and qualified successor to a ward or precinct assessor. The petition is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

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

HENRY, J.

This is an. action in quo warranto to test the right of the relator and defendant respectively to hold the office of assessor in the eighth ward of the city of Cleveland. The relator claims to hold over because the defendant who was elected to succeed him in said office is disqualified by noncitizenship. Under Secs. 6762-6764 R. S. (Secs. 12305-12307 G. C.), the relator can not maintain this action unless he claims, with some color of ground, to be entitled to the office. His claim is evidently founded on See. 8 R. S. (See. 8 G. C.), but he has apparently overlooked Sec. 1518 Rev. Stat. (Sec. 3352 G. C.), which provides that a vacancy and not a holdover results when there is no duly elected and qualified successor to a ward or precinct assessor. The petition is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcmahon-v-carlin-ohcirctcuyahoga-1910.