Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0363-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 421
    STATE ex HOLMES v. THATCHER
    No. 20317.
    Supreme Court
    In Mandamus.
    Decided March 8, 1927
    1064. SALARIES — Ohio Constitution Art. II, Sec. 20, which provides that salary of an officer shall not be changed during existing term unless office is abolished is violated by the action of a board of county commission and t,he city- council in increasing salary of municipal judge who was in office at time Sec. 1558-48 GC. authorizing, increase was enacted.
    Attorneys — Franklin Rubrecht, James N. Linton, Paul M. Herbert and B. W. Giarheart for State ex; John J. Chester, Jr., Largdom T. Williams, and R. J. Odell for Thatcffir; all of Columbus.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause is an original suit in the court upon the relation of one of the judges of the municipal court of Columbus, to compel the county auditor of Franklin County to issue a warrant for compensation claimed to be due the relator as a judge of the municipal court. The statute applicable to this matter is a part of the municipal court act for the city of Columbus being section 1558-48 GC., which provides how and how much municipal judges shall receive as compensation.

Pursuant to this authority, the commissioners of Franklin County prior to Jan. 1, 1927, by resolution appropriated the sum of $1500 which was an increase of $500 per year, and the council of the city of Columbus appropriated the sum of $3000, which was an increase of $500 over the amount theretofore payable by the city. The relator was elected to office and was in the discharge of his duties as such prior to the time of such increases.

The Supreme Court held:

1. This court has heretofore in the case of State ex Dempsey v. Zangerle, Aud., 114 OS. 435, in effect, declared a similar statute to be valid.

2. But neither that case nor any other case decided by this court has ever approved any statute, or any other legislative authority or quasi legislative authority to increase the salary of any officer during an existing' term of office.

3. The action of the board of -commissioners and of the city council, in so far as it applies to judges of the municipal court of the city of Columbus who were in office at the time of the enactment of such provisions of Sect. 30 of article 2 of the Constitution of Ohio which provides that the General Assembly shall fix the term of office and compensation therefore, but shall not affect the salary during term unless the office is abolished.

Writ therefore denied.

Marshall, CJ., and Day, Allen, Kinkace, Robinson, Jones & Matthias, JJ., concur.