Case Name: Stearns v. Village of Wyoming et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1895-10-22
Citations: 53 Ohio St. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stearns v. Village of Wyoming et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 53
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Stearns v. Village of Wyoming et al.
Member of council — Contested election — Decision of council cannot be reviewed.
The determination by a council of the contested election of a member of its body, cannot be reviewed on error.
(Decided October 22, 1895.)
Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
In the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, the plaintiff in error, William S. Stearns, filed a petition in error against the village of Wyoming and the members of its common council named in the petition. He claimed that at an election held in the village on April 2, 1894, he was duly elected to the common council as one of its members, and certified as such. And that in a contest instituted in the council by certain parties on behalf of J. I. Taylor, he was ousted as a member, and that Taylor was declared elected and seated in his place. .' The plaintiff claimed that the council erred in receiving- oral testimony as to certain ballots received by the judges and not counted and in counting them for Taylor, contrary to the provisions of the statute on the subject. The common pleas, after hearing- the case, affirmed the action of the council and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition with costs. The judgment was affirmed on error by the circuit court with costs.
Bateman <& Ha/rper, for plaintiff in error.
Marsh <£¡ Richie, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Held: That the power conferred by section 1679, Revised Statutes, on common councils of municipal corporations to "judge of the election, returns and qualifications of their own members, " is not only exclusive of any other jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, as decided in State ex rel v. Berry, 47 Ohio St., 232, but is also final. The power exercised by councils in such cases, is political in character and not judicial in the sense that their determination of - the question who is, and who is not, entitled to a seat in their body, can be reviewed by a court. State ex rel. v. Harmon, 31 Ohio St., 250. It therefore follows, that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed with costs, and that that of the common pleas should be affirmed so far as it dismissed the petition of the plaintiff in error in that court, and reversed as to costs.
Judgment accordingly.