From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. v. Brown

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 4, 1956
133 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 1956)

Opinion

No. 34746

Decided April 4, 1956.

Elections — Primaries — Representatives to Congress — Declarations of candidacy and petitions of candidates — Where to be filed — Most populous county of district — Section 3513.05, Revised Code, construed — Mandamus.

IN MANDAMUS.

The relators tendered to the Board of Elections of Ashtabula County their nominating petitions for the office of Representative to Congress in the Eleventh Congressional District. The board refused to accept the petitions and to place the names of relators on the ballot for the May primary election.

The Eleventh Congressional District consists of all of the counties of Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake and Portage, and a portion of Trumbull County. Of the first four counties named, Ashtabula is conceded to be the most populous. That portion of Trumbull County which is included in the district is conceded to be more populous than any of the other four counties.

Section 3513.05, Revised Code, provides in part that, "if the declaration of candidacy declares a candidacy which is to be submitted only to electors within a district comprised of more than one county but less than all of the counties of the state, * * * such declaration of candidacy and petition shall be filed with the board of elections of the most populous county of such district." (Emphasis added.)

By this action in mandamus relators seek to compel the Board of Elections of Ashtabula County and the Secretary of State to accept their nominating petitions, which relators allege are properly executed, and to have their names placed on the official Republican and Democratic party ballots for the May primary election.

The case is before the court on a demurrer to the petition, on the ground that it does not state facts which show a cause of action.

Mr. Stephen M. Young and Mr. John C. Fontana, for relators.

Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, and Mr. Hugh A. Sherer, for respondents.


The question for determination is whether the phrase, "most populous county of such district," as used in Section 3513.05, Revised Code, above quoted, refers to a county wholly situated in the district or to a county not wholly situated in the district, where the portion in the district is most populous.

The phrase in question formerly read, "most populous county in the district" (Section 4785-70, General Code, 114 Ohio Laws, 679, 689). In 1947 (122 Ohio Laws, 103, 111), the words, "in the," were changed to "of such." This change in wording creates a presumption that the General Assembly intended by the amendment to change the meaning. Therefore, the word, "of," can not be construed to mean "in." As defined in Webster's New International Dictionary (2 Ed.), "in" denotes "situation or position with respect to a surrounding encompassment, or enclosure." "Of" is defined "in the most general sense: proceeding from; belonging to; relating to; connected with."

Since the General Assembly, by Section 3521.01, Revised Code, has placed the major portion of Trumbull County in the Eleventh Congressional District, that county "belongs to," "relates to" or is "connected with" that district.

Therefore, it being conceded by relators that the portion of Trumbull County located in the eleventh district is more populous than any of the other four counties included in the district, Trumbull County is the most populous county "of" the district, and relators, by tendering their petitions to the Board of Elections of Ashtabula County, have failed to comply with the statutory requirement.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. v. Brown

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 4, 1956
133 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 1956)
Case details for

State ex Rel. v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. CLAMPITT ET AL. v. BROWN, SECY. OF STATE, ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Apr 4, 1956

Citations

133 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 1956)
133 N.E.2d 369

Citing Cases

State v. Powers

One rule of construction that courts in the past have employed provides that, if an amendment to a statute…