Case Name: The State, ex rel. Hickenlooper, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Marx, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Gusweiler, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Fox, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Spiegel, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Yeatman, v. Beaman, Auditor; The State, ex rel. Alexander, v. Beaman, Auditor
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-07-11
Citations: 105 Ohio St. 652
Docket Number: Nos. 17433 to 17439
Parties: The State, ex rel. Hickenlooper, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Marx, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Gusweiler, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Fox, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Spiegel, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Yeatman, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Alexander, v. Beaman, Auditor.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 105
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Hickenlooper, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Marx, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Gusweiler, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Fox, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Spiegel, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Yeatman, v. Beaman, Auditor. The State, ex rel. Alexander, v. Beaman, Auditor.
Superior and municipal courts of Cincinnati — Compensation of judges — Section 2252, General Code (108 O. L., pt. 2, 1301)— Section 1558-4, General Code (108 O. h., pt. 2, 1123) — Increase during term of office — Section 20, Article II, Constitution.
(Nos. 17433 to 17439
Decided July 11, 1922.)
Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.
Messrs. Dinsmore, Shohl & Sawyer and Mr. Simeon M. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Louis H. Capelle, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Chas. S. Bell, assistant prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the same hereby are affirmed; this court being unanijudgments of the said court of appeals he, and the mously of the opinion and finding that the statute involved in these eases has no application to the facts here involved because of the provisions of Section 20, Article II, of the Constitution of Ohio.
Judgments affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.