Sutter v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Sutter v. State

140 N.E. 783, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 867, 108 Ohio St. 309, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 219

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1923

DocketNo. 17870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 N.E. 783 (Sutter v. State) 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

Sutter v. State, 140 N.E. 783, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 867, 108 Ohio St. 309, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 219 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion-

This was-an original action in quo warranto, instituted in the Court of Appeals of Crawford county by the State on relation of Maul against Sutter. The evidence disclosed that Sutter was a member of the school board of the New Washington school district; that a part of the territory of this school district was transferred to the Chatfield school district, and Sutter lived in the district so transferred; and that Maul was elected to fill the vacancy by the board. Sutter contended that he had changed his residence and become a bona fide resident of the New Washington district. The Court of Appeals entered a judgment of ouster against Sutter on the ground that Sutter’s change of residence was pretended only. Affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court held:

1. “Quo Warranto, 12307 GC., is the proper remedy to test the right to hold office as member of the board of education of a consolidated school district. Mandamus will not lie because -it is a writ issued in the name of the State to an inferior tribunal commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, resulting from an office, trust or station.”

2. Mandamus, 12283, will not lie to test the right to hold office.

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

PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion-

This was-an original action in quo warranto, instituted in the Court of Appeals of Crawford county by the State on relation of Maul against Sutter. The evidence disclosed that Sutter was a member of the school board of the New Washington school district; that a part of the territory of this school district was transferred to the Chatfield school district, and Sutter lived in the district so transferred; and that Maul was elected to fill the vacancy by the board. Sutter contended that he had changed his residence and become a bona fide resident of the New Washington district. The Court of Appeals entered a judgment of ouster against Sutter on the ground that Sutter’s change of residence was pretended only. Affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court held:

1. “Quo Warranto, 12307 GC., is the proper remedy to test the right to hold office as member of the board of education of a consolidated school district. Mandamus will not lie because -it is a writ issued in the name of the State to an inferior tribunal commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, resulting from an office, trust or station.”

2. Mandamus, 12283, will not lie to test the right to hold office.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.E. 783, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 867, 108 Ohio St. 309, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutter-v-state-ohio-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack