Case Name: HAAS v. JENNINGS; HAAS v. LaPENAS; HAAS v. MURPHY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-04-24
Citations: 7 Ohio Law Abs. 270
Docket Number: Nos 21371-3-4
Parties: HAAS v JENNINGS HAAS v LaPENAS HAAS v MURPHY
Judges: Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 7
Pages: 270–270

Head Matter:
HAAS v JENNINGS HAAS v LaPENAS HAAS v MURPHY
Ohio Supreme Court
Nos 21371-3-4.
Decided Apr 24, 1929

Opinion:
Syllabus by
ROBINSON, J.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
(145) An executive officer has only such power to punish for contempt as has been expressly conferred upon him by legislative act or by constitutional or charter provision. COURTS
(180 M2) A charter provision that confers upon the mayor the "power to cause the witness to be punished ' as for contempt", without defining the mode or extent of the punishment, is not self-executing.
The provisions of Sections 3515-37 and 3515-59, General Code, are not effective to invest the mayor of a municipality with a power to punish for contempt, for the reason that they do not define the extent of the punishment.
Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.