Case Name: Luginbuhl et al., County Commissioners, v. The State, ex rel. Blank
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1919-07-08
Citations: 100 Ohio St. 223
Docket Number: No. 16219
Parties: Luginbuhl et al., County Commissioners, v. The State, ex rel. Blank.
Judges: Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 100
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Luginbuhl et al., County Commissioners, v. The State, ex rel. Blank.
Memorial buildings — Supervision and control — Section 3068, General Code — Board of county commissioners — May deny use of building, when — Discretion not reviewable, when — Mandamus.
(No. 16219
Decided July 8, 1919.)
Error to the Court of Appeals of Allen county.
Mr. John L. Cable, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. E. T. Lippincott, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Edwin Blank, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The county commissioners of Allen county denied the application presented by relator for the use of the memorial hall at Lima on January 22, 1919, for the "purpose of delivering and hearing a public speech."
The common pleas court upon application of relator granted a writ of mandamus requiring the commissioners to grant relator the use of said memorial hall for said purpose on the date stated, and that judgment and order was affirmed by the court of appeals.
By the provisions of Section 3068, General Code, the supervision and control of such county memorial building, erected pursuant to the provisions of Section 3059, General Code, is vested in the board of county commissioners. It is there provided that "they may permit the occupancy and use of the memorial building, or any part thereof, upon such terms as they deem proper." Authority to control the occupancy and use of such building or any part thereof is thereby lodged in the county commissioners, and a discretion is thereby vested in such board. The record in this, case discloses no abuse of that discretion, nor does it disclose that the relator has been deprived of any right guaranteed to a citizen by the constitution of the state or of the United States, and therefore no case is made justifying the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus. The courts will not usurp functions which by law are vested in administrative bodies.
Judgment reversed.
Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.