State ex rel. Wetecamp v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Wetecamp v. Brown

159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 172

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 25, 1953·No. No. 32985·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the appointment as prayed for would be a vain thing, inasmuch, had Wetecamp been holding the office for such term, he would automatically have been retired on June 30, 1952, as required by Section 486-59, General Code, unless, upon approval of an application therefor, he had been “continued in service for a period of one year or any part thereof,” which the Secretary of State, as the appointing authority, refused to do.

The question involved, therefore, is moot. The petition is dismissed on authority of Miner v. Witt, City Clerk, 82 Ohio St., 237, 92 N. E., 21.

Petition dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taet, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Stewart, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the appointment as prayed for would be a vain thing, inasmuch, had Wetecamp been holding the office for such term, he would automatically have been retired on June 30, 1952, as required by Section 486-59, General Code, unless, upon approval of an application therefor, he had been “continued in service for a period of one year or any part thereof,” which the Secretary of State, as the appointing authority, refused to do.

The question involved, therefore, is moot. The petition is dismissed on authority of Miner v. Witt, City Clerk, 82 Ohio St., 237, 92 N. E., 21.

Petition dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taet, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Stewart, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Wetecamp v. Brown, 159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 172 (Ohio 1953).

Pincite

159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 172 (State ex rel. Wetecamp v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.