Case ID: ohio_2/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whitmore Knaggs v. Horatio Conant.
    
      Chancery.
    
    Where a cause is certified to the Supreme Court from the court of common pleas, upon account of the interest of the judges, the facts upon which the interest arises must he set out in the certificate.
    This cause came before Judges Burnet and Sherman, at the August Term, 1825, in the county of Wood.
    It was certified to this court from the court of common pleas on the ground that there was not a constitutional quorum of disinterested judges to try it. The certificate accompanying the record was in these words : “ Whereupon this cause being called 'by the honorable court in chancery, E. Lane, Esq., solicitor for the defendant, suggests that there is not a quorum of judges qualified to try this cause on account of interest, and this appearing, the clerk of our said court, according to the statute in such case made and provided, certifies the pleadings to the Supreme Court.”
    The court, having inspected the record, refused to take cognizance of the cause for want of jurisdiction, and ordered the transcript to be sent back to the common pleas of Wood county.
   By the Court:

The statute provides, that if any suit or action in the court of common pleas, it shall so happen that there is not a sufficient number of disinterested judges of such court to sit on the trial, it shall be the duty of such court, on the application of either party, to cause the facts to be entered on the minutes of the court, and also to order an authenticated copy thereof, with all the proceedings in such suit or action to be forthwith certified to the next Supreme Court *of the county, which Supreme Court shall thereupon take cognizance thereof, in like manner as if it had been originally commenced in that court, and shall proceed to hear and determine the same accordingly. The jurisdiction of this court, therefore, depends on the existence of an interest in the court below, which must be ascertained by the record. The law requires the facts, from which this interest is inferred, to be entered on the minutes and certified to the Supreme Court with a transcript of the proceedings. We are not to rely on the opinion of the court of common pleas, or of counsel in the ease, that there -is not a constitutional quorum of disinterested judges. We must be furnished with record evidence of the facts from which that conclusion is drawn. Judges and lawyers frequently differ as to what amounts to evidence of an interest, and, as our jurisdiction depends on the reality of such an interest, we must bo furnished with the facts, and form an opinion for ourselves. In this case it does Rot appear what the facts were, or that the common pleas directed any entry or certificate to be made. It is merely stated that, on the suggestion.of counsel, the clerk certifies, etc. On such a certificate as this we can not venture to proceed, as it does not furnish us with evidence from which we can ascertain that we have jurisdiction. The letter and spirit of the statute requires that the courts below should ascertain the truth of the facts, from which the interest of the judges is inferred, and that they order those facts to be entered on their minutes, and certified, with a copy of all the proceedings, to this court.