State ex rel. Hogan v. Hunt

Citations

• 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 143

Syllabus

<p>Authority for action in quo warranto — Given only by section 12303, General Code — Legality of exercise of mere function — Cannot be inquired into, when — Sections 1539, 1540 and 1683, General Code — Do not constitute a supervising judge — An officer holding a separate office, when.</p> <p>1. The authority, and the only authority for bringing an action in quo warranto in this state, is given by section 12303 of the General Code. That section provides that quo warranto may be brought in the name of the state against a person who usurps, intrudes upon, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office, or a franchise, within this state.</p> <p>2. The legality of the exercise of a mere function alleged to be erroneously exercised by one who, it is claimed, is a public officer, can not be inquired into by a proceeding in quo warranto.</p> <p>3. Neither section 1539, 1540, nor 1687, of the General Code, nor all taken together, constitute the judge therein designated as supervising judge, an officer holding an office separate and distinct from his office as judge of the court of common pleas. Such designation is mere descriptio personae. And there being no such public office as supervising judge, there can be'no intrusion by anyone into such alleged office. Hence, quo warranto will not lie to oust such alleged intruder. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the action sought to be brought.</p>