Case Name: The Township of Hartford v. Edwin Bennett
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1859-12
Citations: 10 Ohio St. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Township of Hartford v. Edwin Bennett.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 10
Pages: 356–358

Head Matter:
The Township of Hartford v. Edwin Bennett.
1. A pleading under the code, which sets up two or more causes of action, or two or more defenses, but omits to separately state and number them, is-not, for that reason, demurrable. The irregularity can be reached only by motion.
2. When a citizen is elected to the office of constable, but refuses to serve, and an action is brought against him for the statutory penalty provided for such, refusal, and his answer sets up that at the same election he was elected to the office of supervisor, and that he accepted the latter office, and qualified and entered upon the discharge of its duties, such answer, on demurrer thereto, discloses a sufficient defense to the action. A citizen will not, in • such case, be compelled to accept both offices.
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the district court of Trumbull county.
On the 17th of November, 1856, a petition was filed in the court ■of common pleas of Trumbull county, on behalf *of the township of Hartford, plaintiff, against Edwin Bennett, defendant, in a •civil action brought into that court by appeal from the judgment *of a justice of the peace. The action was brought to recovir of the defendant the penalty imposed by statute for refusing to ■serve in the office of constable. The petition averred that Bennett was duly elected at the regular township election, held on the first Monday of April, 1856; that he was declared duly elected, was notified according to the provisions of the statute; that he refused to qualify himself or to serve in said office; that the township clerk ■demanded of him the penalty provided in case of such refusal and neglect, and that he refused to pay; wherefore judgment was asked for the amount of the penalty and interest.
In answer to the petition Bennett says that, at the township ■election mentioned in the petition, ho was legally elected to the ■office of supervisor for road district No. 4 in said township, and that the office of supervisor is a township office in said township; that he was duly declared so elected at said election, and that he was duly notified of his said election to said office of supervisor, and required to appear within the time prescribed by the statute, and qualify as such supervisor, and that,'according to the command of said notice, he appeared before the trustees on the 17th day of April, 1856, and duly executed his official bond and qualified, as required by the statute, as such supervisor, and thereupon entered ¡upon and is still in the discharge of the duties of said office. The answer further states that since said election, and before the trial of this case by the justice, two of the acting trustees of the township, being a legal majority of the trustees, and legally authorized to settle or release any claim of the plaintiff, fully released the defendant from any pretended claim of the plaintiff, by release in writing, signed by said two trustees. A copy of the release is set out in the answer.
The plaintiff demurred to this answer on the following grounds: *1. The answer does not contain facts sufficient to con'stitute a defense to the plaintiff’s action; 2. The separate causes of defense in said answer are not separately stated and numbered, as required by the code.'
The court of common pleas, at its October term, 1857, sustained1 the' demurrer, and no further answer being made, rendered judgment accordingly against the defendant.
Thereupon the defendant filed his petition in error in the district court, to reverse the judgment of the common pleas.
At the September term, 1859, of the district court, the judgment, of fihe common pleas was reversed,' and judgment entered against the township for costs. To reverse this judgment of the district court, the township filed a motion in the Supreme Court for leave-to file therein a petition in error.
L. C. Jones, for the. motion.
U. H. Hutchins, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
A pleading under the code, which sets up two--
or more causes of action or two or more defenses, but omits to separately state and number them, is not, for that reason, demurrable. The irregularity can be reached only by motion.
The answer, setting up that at the same election at which the-defendant in error was elected to the office of constable he was-elected to the office of supervisor, and that he accepted the latter-office and qualified and entered upon the discharge of its duties, discloses, on demurrer, a sufficient defense to the action. A citizen, in such case, will not be compelled to accept both offices.
Motion for leave to file petition in error overruled.