State ex rel. Herrick v. Searcy

Citations

• 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 83

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — OFFICE AND OFFICERS.</p> <p>1. Seniority of Service of Policeman Affords no Preference in Case of Reduction of City Force.</p> <p>Seniority of employment in the classifiediservice of municipalities entitles incumbents in office thereunder to no preference over others subsequently acquiring positions in such sérvice by virtue of examinations under the merit system, except as.provided by Sec. 165 of the Mun. Code of 1902 (Lan. Rev. Stat. 3153; B. 1536-701) in cases of promotion .from one rank to another. Hence, in reducing the number of patrolmen of a city, pursuant to ordinance of its council, the board of public safety may reclassify its police force regardless of the length of service of its members,</p> <p>2. Power of Municipal Council to Reduce Number of Patrolmen.</p> <p>Section 227 of the Mun. Code of 1902 (Lan. Rev. Stat. 3230; B. 1536-1005), authorizing municipal councils to fix the number of employes in the department of public safety, gives councils authority to reduce the number of its patrolmen.</p> <p>3. Retainins Policemen in Office at Adoption of Code Gives no Better Status than Civil Service Examination.</p> <p>Sections 167 and 213 (Lan. Rev. Stat. 3156, 3229; B. 1536-703, 1536-912). providing that no removals in the civil service, list shall'be made, except for cause, and continuing in office certain municipal employes, are provisional in their scope and were intended to give incumbénts their status under the new code, but they give no higher status.or greater right to position than those subsequently placed in employment by examination under the merit system.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>