USA > Ohio > Bench and bar of Ohio; a compendium of history and biography, Vol. I > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60
In the meantime the Supreme Court had decided in the case of King vs. Safford, 19 O. S., 587, that a District Court held by three or more Common Pleas judges without the presence of a judge of the Supreme Court was a lawful and constitutional District Court. The absence of the Supreme Court judges from the District Court tended in no small degree to lessen the respect for its decisions which ought to be given to such a tribunal, and the fact that Common Pleas judges were required to hold the District Court in addition to performing their duties as Common Pleas judges without any extra compensa- tion, tended, either because of the lack of time or of inclination, to make their sessions short, prevented them from giving the time necessary to a full exam- ination of the cases submitted to them, and to cause the court to be regarded simply as a necessary stopping place on the way to the Supreme Court. It was sought to remedy this in 1877 by submitting to the voters of the State a Constitutional Amendment providing for an independent District Court com- posed of certain of the Common Pleas judges who should devote their entire time to the business of that Court; but that amendment was voted down. By the act of May 10, 1878, it was provided that the Supreme Court or a majority thereof should designate three Common Pleas judges in each district to hold the District Courts of such district, and that such judges should not be required to hold Common Pleas Court, but this Act was declared, in the case of " In the Matter of the Appointment of Judges to hold District Court," 34 O. S., 431, to be unconstitutional.
On the 8th of July, 1880, the members of the Bar of the State assembled in convention at Cleveland for the purpose of forming, and did form a State Bar Association, and one of the first matters brought to the attention of the Association was the securing of a plan to facilitate the administration of jus- tice in the State. In the course of the discussion upon that proposition, Judge R. P. Ranney, president of the association, who had been one of the judges of the first Supreme Court under the Constitution of 1851, and who was one
39
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
of the ablest jurists in Ohio, said: "The framers of our judicial system created an intermediate Appellate Court, called the District Court, but they never contemplated that that court was going to be held exclusively by the very men who had decided the cases in the first instance; that they were going to turn reviewers of themselves. It was an essential feature of their system, without which it never could have passed that convention, that a judge of the Supreme Court, with his knowledge and weight of character, should forever preside in that Appellate Court. What have we realized for years past in practice ? That court is held by the judges that decided in the first instance and Common Pleas judges, doing as well as they can, I admit, but in nowise meeting the public expectation of an Appellate Court to put an end to con- troversies. The consequence is that cases finding their way into that court go there simply as a stopping place, a necessary resting place, to be crowded into the Supreme Court, and the consequence is that all the important litigation of the State finds its way right through this first Appellate Court into the Supreme Court." This question was referred to the committee on Judicial Administration and Law Reform of the association.
At the meeting of the association held in Columbus in December, 1880, the committee on Judicial Administration and Law Reform, through its chair- man, Durbin Ward, submitted a form of amendment to the judicial article of the Constitution. That amendment provided for the abolition of the District Court; for increasing the number of the Supreme Court judges to nine; for the holding of one term in each year of that court at the seat of government ; and for special terms of the Supreme Court to be held by not less than two judges in each county of the State at least once in each year, in effect re-estab- lishing the judicial article of the Constitution of 1802. This plan of the com- mittee was adopted by the association, and the committee on Judicial Adminis- tration and Legal Reform commissioned to present the same to the legislature at its next session. That committee presented the same to the legislature and reported to the association at its meeting at Toledo, in 1881, that the legisla- ture had not seen fit to take any action in regard thereto, and the whole mat- ter was again referred to the same committee for further consideration.
At the meeting of the association in Cincinnati, in 1882, the committee submitted the following plan proposing an amendment to the judicial article of the Constitution :
Section 1. The judicial power of the State is vested (1) in a Supreme Court. (2) Circuit Courts. Courts of Common Pleas, Courts of Probate, jus- tices of the peace, and such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court, as the general assembly may from time to time establish. (3) (As amended Octo- ber 9, 1883; 80 v. 382).
Section 2. The Supreme Court shall, until otherwise provide (provided ?) by law, consist of five judges, a majority of whom competent to sit shall be necessary to form a quorum or to pronounce a decision, except as hereinafter provided. It shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus and procedendo, (1) and suchi appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at least one term in each year at the seat of government, and such other terms, there or elsewhere, as may be provided by
40
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
law. (2) The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the State at large, for such term, not less than five years, as the general assembly may prescribe, and they shall be elected and their official term shall begin at such time as may be fixed by law. In case the general assembly shall increase the number of such judges, the first term of such additional judges shall be such, that in each year after their first election, an equal number of judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected, except in elections to fill vacancies ; and whenever the number of such judges shall be increased, the general assembly may authorize such court to organize divisions thereof, not exceeding three, each division to consist of an equal number of judges; for the adjudication of cases, a majority of each division shall constitute a quorum, and such an assignment of the cases to each division may be made as such court may deem expedient, but whenever all the judges of either division hearing a case shall not concur as to the judgment to be rendered therein, or whenever a case shall involve the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly or of an act of Congress, it shall be reserved to the whole court for adjudication. The judges of the Supreme Court in office when this amendment takes effect, shall con- tinue to hold their offices until their successors are elected and qualified. (As amended October 9, 1883; 80 v. 382.)
Section 6. The Circuit Court shall have like original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. Such courts shall be composed of such number of judges as may be provided by law, and shall be held in each county, at least once in each year. The number of circuits, and the boundaries thereof, shall be prescribed by law. Such judges shall be elected in each circuit by the electors thereof, and at such time and for such term as may be prescribed by law, and the same number shall be elected in each circuit. Each judge shall be competent to exercise his judicial powers in any circuit. The general assembly may change, from time to time, the number of boundaries of the circuits. The circuits shall be the successors of the District Courts, and all cases, judgments, records and proceedings pending in said District Courts, in the several counties of any dis- trict, shall be transferred to the Circuit Courts in the several counties, and be proceeded in as though said District Courts had been abolished, and the Dis- trict Courts shall continue in existence until the election and qualification of the judges of the Circuit Courts. (As amended October 9, 1883; 80 v. 382.)
This plan was presented on behalf of the association to the general assem- bly, and at its 1883 session a joint resolution was adopted to submit this propo- sition to amend the Constitution to the electors at the October election of that year, and at that election the same was adopted by the people and became Sections 1, 2 and 6 of Article IV. of the Constitution.
Thus through the efforts of the State Bar Association the Circuit Courts were established, and I do not believe that any of those who worked so hard to procure the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution, or any of those who have ever had occasion to practice before this independent intermediate court, have ever had occasion to regret the change thus made, or to feel other- wise than grateful to those through whose energetic efforts it was brought about. At the next session of the legislature an Act was passed, April 14, 1884, to provide for the division of the State into circuits and the organization of Circuit Courts as follows :
· The State shall be divided into seven circuits, of which the counties of
41
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
Hamilton, Clermont, Butler, Warren and Clinton, shall constitute the First Circuit.
The counties of Preble, Darke, Shelby, Miami, Montgomery, Champaign, Clarke, Greene, Fayette, Madison and Franklin, shall constitute the Second Circuit.
The counties of Mercer, Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance, Williams, Fulton, Henry, Putnam, Allen, Auglaize, Wood, Hancock, Hardin, Logan, Union, Seneca, Marion, Wyandot and Crawford, shall constitute the Third Circuit.
The counties of Brown, Adams, Highland, Pickaway, Ross, Pike, Scioto, Lawrence, Gallia, Jackson, Mcigs, Vinton, Hocking, Athens, Washington and Monroe, shall constitute the Fourth Circuit.
The counties of Morrow, Richland, Ashland, Knox, Licking, Fairfield, Perry, Morgan, Muskingum, Coshocton, Holmes, Wayne, Stark, Tuscarawas and Delaware, shall constitute the Fifth Circuit.
The counties of Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie, Huron, Lorain, Medina, Summit and Cuyahoga, shall constitute the Sixth Circuit.
The counties of Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Trumbull, Portage, Mahoning, Columbiana, Carroll, Jefferson, Harrison, Guernsey, Belmont and Noble, shall constitute the Seventh Circuit.
By that Act it was provided that the Circuit Court should be held by three judges, a majority of whom competent to sit should be necessary to pro- nounce a decision, enter an order, judgment or decree; that the first election of Circuit Judges should be held at the October election of 1884, at which time three judges should be elected in each circuit; that immediately after the election the governor sbould determine, by lot, the terms of the judges elected in each circuit, so that one judge should hold office for two years, one for four and one for six years ; and the term of office for the Circuit Judges was there- after fixed at six years. In addition to the original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, the Circuit Court was given power to issue writs of superse- deas in any case, and all other writs not specially provided for nor prohibited by statutc, when necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction in the due adminis- tration of justice, and that two terms of the Circuit Court should be held in each county in each year. All cases in the District Court were to be trans- ferred to the Circuit Court, upon condition, in appeal cases, that a new bond was given, and all the provisions of the statutes as to the District Courts or a judge thereof were made applicable to the Circuit Court and the judges thereof. The result of the election in October, 1884, showed very clearly that the members of the legislature in fixing the boundaries of the different cir- cuits had done so with due regard to the business to be done in each circuit, and without paying any attention to the political complexion of the circuit, as five of the seven circuits elected Republican judges, although the legislature which fixed the boundaries of the circuits was Democratic.
At this first election the following judges were elected in each circuit, their names being given in the order of their terms of office as determined under the provisions of the statute :
42
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
First Circuit. Joseph Cox, Cincinnati ; James M. Smith, Lebanon ; Peter F. Swing, Batavia.
Second Circuit. Marshall J. Williams, Washington C. H .; Gilbert H. Stewart, Columbus ; John A. Shauck, Dayton.
Third Circuit. Thomas Beer, Bucyrus; John J. Moore, Ottawa ; Henry W. Seney, Kenton.
Fourth Circuit. Thomas Cherrington, Ironton ; J. P. Bradbury, Pomeroy; Milton L. Clark, Chillicothe.
Fifth Circuit. John W. Allbaugh, Canton; Charles Follett, Newark ; John W. Jenner, Mansfield.
Sixth Circuit. William H. Upson, Akron; Charles C. Baldwin, Cleve- land ; George R. Haynes, Toledo.
Seventh Circuit. Peter A. Laubie, Salem; William H. Frazier, Cald- well; Hamilton B. Woodbury, Jefferson.
At the next session of the legislatureafter the election an Act was passed, February 7, 1885, to revise and consolidate the statutes relative to the organ- ization and jurisdiction of the Circuit and other courts. By this act it was provided that the judges of the Circuit Court should meet once a year in the city of Columbus, to fix the terms of the Circuit Court for the ensuing year and choose one of their number as Chief Justice for the next judicial year, who was to preside at their annual meetings, and who was given power to transfer judges of the Circuit Court from one circuit to another whenever occasion required. It also provided that in addition to the cases and matters specially provided for, an appeal might be taken to the Circuit Court, by a party or other person directly affected, from a judgment or final order in a civil action rendered by the Common Pleas Court and of which it had original jurisdic- tion. if the right to demand a jury therein did not exist, and from an interloc- utory order made by the Common Pleas Court or a judge thereof, dissolving an injunction in a case of which it had original jurisdiction, by causing notice to be entered upon the record and giving a bond in appeal unless the party appealing was acting in a trust capacity and had given bond in this State. A case on appeal was heard upon the same pleadings as in the court below, unless amendments were permitted or ordered by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court was also given power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders after the term at which the same was made, and all rules as to new trials were made applicable to the Circuit Court. Power was given to the Circuit Court or a judge thereof in his circuit to appoint receivers and issue injunctions in any cause pending in the Circuit Court of his circuit upon the proper application; and to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a proper case. It was also provided that a judgment rendered or final order made by the Com- mon Pleas Court might be reversed, vacated or modified by the Circuit Court, for errors appearing on the record. The Circuit Court was required to pass upon all errors assigned in the petition in error, and in every case where the judgment or order was reversed and remanded for a new trial the court was required in its mandate to the court below to state the error or errors found in
43
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
the record upon which the judgment of reversal was based. The Supreme Court not being required in any case, except cases in which it had original jurisdiction, to pass upon the weight of the evidence, it followed that the Circuit Court was the final arbiter upon all questions of fact involved in cases coming before it, either upon appeal or error.
On the 10th day of February, 1835, the circuit judges met for the first time in the Supreme Court room in the city of Columbus, and Judge Marshall J. Williams, of Washington Court House, was elected Chief Justice in accord- ance with the provisions of the statute.
After the Circuit Court had been in existence for two years, it was found that the business of the Sixth Circuit was so large that it was necessary to create an additional circuit, and therefore, on March 21, 1887, the legislature amended the Act dividing the State into circuits, so as to provide for eight cir- cuits, the counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Medina and Lorain being taken from the Sixth Circuit to form the Eighth Circuit, and the counties of Wil- liams, Fulton and Wood being taken from the Third Circuit and put into the Sixth. This Act provided that the circuit judge theretofore elected in the Sixth Circuit and at the time of the passage of the Act residing therein, as constituted by the Act, should continue to be judge of this circuit until the end of his term, and that the two judges of the Sixth Circuit theretofore elected therein, but at the time of the passage of the Act resident within the Eighth Circuit, as constituted by the Act, should be judges of the Eighth Circuit until the end of their term, and that at the November election, 1887, there should be elected two circuit judges for the Sixth Circuit, one to serve for five years and one for one year, and there should be elected in the Eighth Circuit one circuit judge for the term of three years.
The Circuit Court of the Sixth Circuit as constituted after the November election, 1887, was composed of Charles S. Bentley, Bryan; George R. Haynes, Toledo ; Charles Scribner, Toledo; and the judges of the new Eighth Circuit Court were Charles C. Baldwin, Cleveland; H. J. Caldwell, Cleveland, and William H. Upson, Akron.
No other change has been made in the circuits since their organization, except that the county of Monroe was removed from the Fourth Circuit and placed in the Seventh Circuit by an Act of the legislature passed May 9, 1894. No attempt has been made to change the circuits for political reasons, the only changes being for the better transaction of business.
The circuit judges for the year 1897 are as follows:
First Circuit. Joseph Cox, Cincinnati; James M. Smith, Lebanon; Peter F. Swing, Batavia.
Second Circuit. Charles C. Shearer, Xenia; A. N. Summers, Springfield; Harrison Wilson, Sidney.
Third Circuit. James II. Day, Celina; James L. Price, Lima; Caleb II. Norris, Marion.
Fourth Circuit. Thomas Cherrington, Ironton; David A. Russell, Pomeroy; Hiram L. Sibley, Marietta.
.
44
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
Fifthı Circuit. J. C. Pomerene, Coshocton ; J. J. Adams, Zanesville ; S. M. Douglass, Mansfield.
Sixth Circuit. E. B. King, Sandusky; George R. Haynes, Toledo ; Rob- ert S. Parker, Bowling Green.
Seventh Circuit. William H. Frazier, Caldwell ; J. B. Burrows, Paines- ville ; Peter A. Laubie, Salem.
Eighth Circuit. John C. Hale, Cleveland; Ulysses L. Marvin, Akron ; H. J. Caldwell, Cleveland.
Hon. Charles C. Shearer, of Xenia, was chosen Chief Justice of the Circuit Court of Ohio for the year 1897.
Of the judges who originally constituted the judges of the Circuit Courts of the various circuits, Judges Marshall J. Williams and John A. Shauck, of the Second Circuit, and J. P. Bradbury, of the Fourth Circuit, have been elected judges of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Judges Charles C. Baldwin, of the Sixth Circuit, and afterwards of the Eighth Circuit, Hamilton B. Wood- bury, of the Seventh Circuit, and Charles Scribner, of the Sixth Circuit, have died. The others not now members of the Circuit Court have returned to the practice of the law.
Soon after the establishment of the Circuit Court there was expressed among the lawyers of the State a great desire for the preservation of impor- tant decisions of the court, and a series of reports called the Ohio Circuit Court Reports was commenced, which will reach, during the year 1897, thir- teen volumes.
The following is a list of all the judges of the Circuit Court from its estab- lishment to the present time, with their terms of service :
FIRST CIRCUIT.
Joseph Cox, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time.
James M. Smith, Lebanon, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time.
Peter F. Swing, Batavia, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time.
SECOND CIRCUIT.
Marshall J. Williams,* Washington C. H., Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1887. Gilbert H. Stewart, Columbus, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1895. John A. Shauck,* Dayton, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1895. Charles C. Shearer, Xenia, Feb. 9, 1887, to present time. James I. Allread, Greenville, Feb. 9, 1895, to Nov. 14, 1895.
Augustus N. Summers, Springfield, Feb. 9, 1895, to present time. Harrison Wilson, Sidney, Nov. 14, 1895, to present time.
THIRD CIRCUIT.
Thomas Beer, Bucyrus, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1893. John J. Moore, Ottawa, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1895. Henry W. Seney, Kenton, Feb. 9, 1885, to Sept. 8, 1896.
* Elected Judge of the Supreme Court.
45
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
James H. Day, Celina, Feb. 9, 1893, to present time. James L. Price, Lima, Feb. 9, 1895, to present time. James K. Roth, Tiffin, Sept. 8, 1896, to Nov. 16, 1896. Ebenezer B. Finley, Bucyrus, Nov. 16, 1896, to Feb. 9, 1897. Caleb H. Norris, Marion, Feb. 9, 1897, to present time.
FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Thomas Cherrington, Ironton, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time. Joseph P. Bradbury,* Pomeroy, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1889. Milton L. Clark,§ Chillicothe, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1897 .- David A. Russell, Pomeroy, Feb. 9, 1889, to present time. Hiram L. Sibley, Marietta, Feb. 9, 1897, to present time. .
FIFTH CIRCUIT.
John W. Albaugh, Canton, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1893. Charles Follet, Newark, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1895. John W. Jenna,+ Mansfield, Feb. 9, 1885, to Oct. 3, 1895. Julius C. Pomerene, Coshocton, Feb. 9, 1893, to present time. John J. Adams, Zanesville, Feb. 9, 1895, to present time. George E. Baldwin, Canton, Oct. 5, 1895, to Nov. 18, 1895. Charles H. Kibler, Newark, Nov. 18, 1895, to Feb. 9, 1897. Silas M. Douglass, Mansfield, Feb. 9, 1897, to present time.
SIXTH CIRCUIT.
William H. Upson,¿ Akron, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1888. Charles C. Baldwin,¿§ Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1885, to Feb. 9, 1888. George R. Haynes, Toledo, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time. Charles S. Bentley, Bryan, Feb. 9, 1888, to Feb. 9, 1895. Charles H. Scribner, § Toledo, Feb. 9, 1888, to Feb. 22, 1897. Robert S. Parker, Bowling Green, March 11, 1897, to present time.
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
Peter A. Laubie, Salem, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time. William H. Frazier, Caldwell, Feb. 9, 1885, to present time. Hamilton B. Woodbury,§ Jefferson, Feb. 9, 1885, to June 19, 1895. Jerome B. Burrows, Painesville, June 25, 1895, to present time. ,
EIGHTII CIRCUIT. 1
Charles C. Baldwin.§ Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1888, to Feb. 2, 1895. Hugh J. Cald well, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1888, to present time. William H. Upson, Akron, Feb. 9, 1888, to Feb. 9, 1893. John C. Hale, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1893, to present time. Ulysses L. Marvin, Akron, Feb. 16, 1895, to present time.
* Elected Judge of the Supreme Court.
+ Resigned.
# Changed to new Eightlı Circuit.
& Deceased.
46
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
The following is a list of the Chief Justices of the Circuit Court, with times of service :
Marshall J. Williams, Washington C. H. 1885 and 1886. James M. Smith, Lebanon. 1887 and 1888.
George R. Haynes, Toledo. 1889 and 1890.
William H. Upson, Akron. 1891 and 1892.
Gilbert H. Stewart, Columbus. 1893 and 1894.
Milton L. Clark, Chillicothe. 1895 and 1896.
Charles C. Shearer, Xenia. 1897.
While the Circuit Court has not, perhaps, realized the hopes of some of its earnest advocates that its existence and high character would prevent many cases from going to the Supreme Court, and thereby lessen the work of this court and enable it to keep up with its work, there is no doubt that this inter- mediate court is no longer regarded as a mere resting place on the way to the Supreme Court, but being composed of men of such high intelligence and pro- found legal learning, with ample time to investigate causes submitted to them and with a disposition to devote their time to that purpose, that a case must be of such grave importance as to require the judgment of the highest court of the State upon it, or the litigants must have developed such a spirit during the litigation as that nothing but the decision of a court of last resort could stop their progress, before a case is taken from the Circuit Court to the Su- preme Court. The records of the Supreme Court during the existence of the Circuit Court show that very few, comparatively, of the cases which have come to that court have been reversed or modified.
While there are some lawyers in the State who are of the opinion that there should be no intermediate court, this feeling only prevails with a very small number, and with the court, composed as it now is of able and learned judges, independent, removed from local and all other influences, and so long as it shall remain so, if it is given relief whenever the business in any circuit becomes too large for the judges to give it the proper attention, it is and will continue to be an ideal court, and most of the lawyers of the State, unless they change their present opinions, will advise their clients to end all litigation in the Circuit Court.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.