Case ID: ohio-cc-dec_25/html/0620-01.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

INSURANCE — WORK AND LABOR.
    [Hamilton (1st) Court of Appeals,
    October 24, 1914.]
    Swing, Jones and Jones, JJ.
    
      Washington T. Porter, et al, Tr. v. Wm. A. Hopkins, Treas. et al. Cincinnati (Bd. of Ed.) v. Hopkins. State ex rel, Pogue Pros. Atty. v. Hopkins. Cincinnati (City) v. Hopkins.
    Jurisdiction not Conferred upon Courts to Enjoin Payments under Workmen's Compensation Law.
    Tbe authority conferred by Secs. 2921 and 4311 G. C. on tbe prosecuting attorney of tbe county and tbe city solicitor to bring actions for the purpose of restraining tbe illegal payment of money from tbe public treasury do not give jurisdiction to a court to entertain an injunction proceeding contrary to the provisions of Sec. 58 of the workmen’s compensation act.
    
      
      W. T. Porter, Walter M. Schoenle, city solicitor, Chas. Á. Groom, Assist, city solicitor, Thomas L. Pogue, Pros. Atty., J. Y. Campbell, Carl M. Jacobs and Simon Boss, Jr., Assist. Pros. Attys., for plaintiffs.
    
      Timothy S. Hogan, Atty. Gen., John A. Deasy, Jas. I. JBoulger, Thomas H. Morrow, Assists., for defendants.
    
      
       Affirmed, Porter v. Hopkins, 91 O. S. 000. (51 Bull. 478).
    
   PER CURIAM.

These actions come into this court on appeal from the court of common pleas. They are brought on behalf of the city of Cincinnati, county of Hamilton, the board of education of the city school district of the city of Cincinnati and the trustees of the public library for the purpose of having Secs. 15, 16, and 17 of act 103 O. L. 77 (Sees. 1465-63 G. C. et seq.), known as the 'Workmen’s Compensation act, declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin the treasurer of Hamilton county from paying a warrant issued by the auditor of Hamilton county in favor of the treasurer of the state of Ohio, to pay the fund provided for in said Secs. 16 and 17.

Objection is made by defendants to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain these injunction proceedings, by reason of Sec. 58 of said act (Sec. 1465-105 G. C.), which is as follows:

“No injunction shall issue suspending or restraining any order, classification or rate adopted by the board, or any action of the auditor of state, treasurer of state, attorney-general, or the auditor or treasurer of any county, required to be taken by them or any of them by any of the provisions of this act; but nothing herein shall affect any right or defense in any action brought by the board or the state in pursuance of authority contained in this act. ’ ’

Plaintiffs rely, however, upon the right of the prosecuting attorney of the county by virtue of See. 2921 G. C., and the solicitor of the city by virtue of Sec. 4311 G. C., to bring such actions for the purpose of restraining the misapplication of funds and the illegal payment of money from the treasury.

While these sections relied upon are both broad in their terms and would ordinarily confer the authority to bring such actions by the prosecuting attorney and the city solicitor, Sec. 58 of the act in question is so specific that it must be held to control. And as it does not take away the right of the courts to entertain other actions to determine the question of constitutionality sought to be raised herein, by its terms, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain these cases, and is without authority to grant the relief prayed therein.

The actions, therefore, will be dismissed.