Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0844-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: MARSHALL, C. J. JONES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 879
    STATE ex rel VOGT v. DONAHEY STATE ex rel VOGT v. KIRCHOFFER
    Nos. 17904, 17817.
    Decided June 28, 1923
    259- MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-
    Removal of mayor by governor — Power of Su| preme Court to review governor’s judgment-
   PER CURIAM:

Epitomized Opinion

The governor, after hearing had before him, re| moved Vogt from the office of mayor -of M-assilloiT for Misconduct, non-feasance and gross neglect of duty in office- Writs of mandamus and quo war-. ranto were asked on relation of Vogt against the governor and K, Vogt’s successor, respectively. In denying the.writs, the Supreme Court held:

Attorneys — Joseph McGhee and P. E. Dempsey, Columbus, and Elson Weffer and Milton' Haines, MassijUon, for Vogt; C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and Edward E- Corn, Ironton, for Donahey; L- C- Wiggins, Massillon, for Kirchoffer-

Whijle the greater part of the evidence ini the record is hearsay and concerns misconduct in a former term and is therefore incompetent, there is- some evidence tending to prove that because of acts in his then term of office the mayor was guilty as charged. While the court would hesitate to convict on this evidence, its province extends only to the determination of whether there was any such evidence.

Wanamaker, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ-, concur

MARSHALL, C. J.

(concurring in the judgment only), held: The governor’s removal of a mayor from office, after hearing had on the charges, is not to judicial inquiry,

JONES, J.

(dissenting-, held: The great mass of the testimony concerned the mayor’s acts in a previous term and was incompetent. Without it the governor would not have removed the mayor.