Case Name: The State, ex rel. Schmidter, v. Hillenbrand et al., etc.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1919-09-30
Citations: 100 Ohio St. 534
Docket Number: No. 16426
Parties: The State, ex rel. Schmidter, v. Hillenbrand et al., etc.
Judges: Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 100
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Schmidter, v. Hillenbrand et al., etc.
Municipal corporations — Home rule — Election and term of officers — Section 7, Article XVIII, Constitution, 1912—Charter adopted and officers chosen at same election—Vice-mayor of Cincinnati — Expiration of term and selection of successor— Candidate’s name not to be submitted to electors, when.
(No. 16426
Decided September 30, 1919.)
In Mandamus.
Mr. George A. Hamma; Mr. John C. McCarthy and Mr. Eli G. Frankenstein, for relator.
Mr. John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. B. W. Gearheart, special counsel; Mr. Louis H. Capelle, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Saul Zielonka, city solicitor, for respondents.

Opinion:
This day this cause came on to be heard upon the pleadings, the agreement of counsel as to controlling facts, and was argued by counsel and submitted to the court, and the court being fully advised in the premises, find on the issue joined for the defendants, for the reason that under the charter provision of the city of Cincinnati, the term of office of vice-mayor elected at the November' election, 1917, is for the term of four years commencing the first day of January next after such election; that the provision of such charter fixing the term of vice-mayor of Cincinnati is valid and not in conflict with any of the provisions of the constitution of this state or of the United States, and that for this reason there is at this time no vacancy in the office of vice-mayor of Cincinnati to be filled by election or otherwise.
It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court, that a peremptory writ of mandamus as prayed for by the relator be refused; that the petition of the relator be dismissed, and that the defendants go hence without day and recover from the relator their costs expended in this action.
Writ denied.
Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.