Case Name: Commissioners of Crawford County v. Commissioners of Marion County
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1847-12
Citations: 16 Ohio 466
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commissioners of Crawford County v. Commissioners of Marion County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 16
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Commissioners of Crawford County v. Commissioners of Marion County.
When county lines are changed, and territory is detached from one county and is attached to another, the county acquiring the additional territory is not entitled to demand-from the other any portion of the funds in its treasury, under the act of 1820.
This is a writ of certiorari, brought to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas of Marion county.
In 1845, the legislature erected, the county of Wyandot out of territory taken in part from the county of Crawford. The quantity thus taken reduced Crawford county below her constitutional limits ; and, to make up the deficiency, besides a portion of Rich-land county, thirty-two square miles and a fraction from the north side of Marion county were attached to Crawford county. Marion county having funds in her treasury more than sufficient to pay her debts, the commissioners of Crawford county demanded of the ^commissioners of Marion a portion of her public moneys, in proportion to the land and other taxable property in the territory ‘detached from the latter county.
The commissioners of Marion refused to settle and allow to the ■commissioners of Crawford any part of the money in her treasury, .and thereupon application was made to the court of common pleas in Marion county, under the act of 1820, to compel the commissioners to make such settlement. The court dismissed the application and rendered judgment against the applicants for costs, and to reverse the judgment of that court this writ is prosecuted.
Franklin Adams, for plaintiff in certiorari.
J. H. G-odman, contra.

Opinion:
Read, J.
The whole question in this case depends upon the •fact whether the county of Crawford, by the change of its boundaries, for the erection of the new county of Wyandot, and for the preservation of its constitutional limits, became a new county. The county of Crawford was organized in 1820. The political organization of the county of Crawford was not destroyed by the .act of 1845, creating the new county of Wyandot. The act organizing the county of Crawford has never been repealed. It can not, therefore, be contended that Crawford is a new county. It is either an old county, or else it has no existence, having been destroyed by being reduced below its constitutional limits, and not having been re-established. In either case it would not be entitled to the money claimed from Marion county. It is claimed that it became a new county by the act which, for the construction of Wyandot county, reduced it below its constitutional limits, and added sufficient territory to make up the deficiency. The identity of a county does not depend upon its territorial boundaries, but its political organization, which the constitution prohibits from being established upon *a less territory than 400 square miles. The object of the act of 1845, in the erection of the county of Wyandot, was not the destruction of the county of Crawford, or a violation of the constitution, but was merely for the erection of a new county, and the preservation of the constitutional territory to an old one, by shifting its boundaries. Now whilst the legislature is prohibited from erecting a new county upon less territory than 400 square miles, we know of no constitutional objection to changing the boundary of a county, if the constitutional quantity of territory is preserved.
This was all' the act of 1845, beyond the erection of the new •county, contemplated or declared. A change of boundary is not the erection of a new county. If its political organization continues, its identity is preserved, its existence dates from the act erecting it, and not the act which may change its boundary. But in the present instance it was not the design of the legislature to destroy Crawford county, or create it into a new county. If it was •destroyed at all, it is by a construction of the act in reference to the constitution, holding that reducing its old limits below the •constitutional quantity, destroyed the county, and that adding thereto new territory, to make up the deficiency, created a new oounty. Such was not the object or intent of the legislature; nor .are we authorized to construe the act to effect that result.
In no sense, then, is Crawford a new county within the meaning of the act under which she seeks to establish a charge upon the treasury of Marion county. Judgment affirmed.