Mahoning Valley Railway Co. v. Santoro

Citations

• 93 Ohio St. (N.S.) 53

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Reversals on weight of evidence — Section-11377, General Code, constitutional — And applies to pending and future cases, when — Rules of constitutional construction— Effect of changing name of court.</p> <p>1. The constitution of 1912, by its schedule, expressly saves '“all laws then in force, not inconsistent therewith.”</p> <p>2. Before a statute can fall by reason of such inconsistency the repugnancy must be necessary and obvious. If by any fair course of reasoning the statute and constitution can be reconciled, the statute must stand. (Following Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St., G07.)</p> <p>3. Section 11577, General Code, is by these tests reconcilable with the several amendments of the constitution adopted in 1912, and is applicable not only to cases pending on the first of January, 1913, but to all other cases, until said statute shall be repealed.</p> <p>4. A mere change of the name of a court does not change the court, where the clear and manifest constitutional purpose is to the contrary.</p>