Case Name: STATE v. VANSUCH
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-11-13
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 170
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. VANSUCH
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 170–170

Head Matter:
No. 268
STATE v. VANSUCH
Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist., Mahoning Co.
Decided Nov. 13, 1924.
874. ORDINANCES—
1. Preservation of peace, health or safety held prerequisite to passage of emergency ordinance.
2. Emergency ordinance not required to be published or posted.
3. • All except emergency ordinances are void unless posted or published.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
NOTE—For a more extended statement of this decision see Vansuch v. State, 3 Abs. 36.
Attorneys—D. F. Rendinell and David G. Jenkins, for Fetch and Coliepedro; Xury Wilkins, for Vansuch; all of Youngstown.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Fetch and Coliepedro brought an action in mandamus in Mahoning common pleas. They were police officers in Youngstown. Their appointments were made from an elegible list duly certified by the civil service commission of said city. An ordinance was passed reducing the number of patrolmen from eight to six, whereupon because of this ordinance the re-lators were dismissed. The trial court found in favor of respondents. In reversing the judgment, the court of appeals held:
1. The ordinance in question was not an emergency ordinance because it was not necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety of said city.
2. Under 4227-3 GC. an emergency ordinance need not be published or posted as in the case of any other ordinance.
3. Under GC. 4227 an ordinance which is not an emergency ordinance must be published or posted before it becomes' effective and if this is not done it did not go into effect and was, therefore, void.