USA > Ohio > Bench and bar of Ohio; a compendium of history and biography, Vol. II > Part 10
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
73
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
unfortunate that his great powers were not called into use upon the broadest theater. Had he been given a seat upon the Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, as was in contemplation when he was in his prime, he would have enriched not only his own fame, but the country would have had additional reason to be justly proud of institutions under whose fostering influences men like Judge Ranney are entrusted with the highest civil authority, and the protection of the rights and liberties of the citizen. He was himself a firm believer in representative government ; insisting, however, that in order to perpetuate it, its abuses and evils must be plainly exposed and resolutely resisted.
In the Constitutional Convention Judge Ranney was made a member of the committee on the judicial department, chairman of the committee on future amendments to the Constitution, and chairman of the committee on revision, enrollment and arrangement. His part in the convention was largely the result of his intense belief in democracy ; not Democracy in a partisan sense, although that belief determined his party fealty also, but democracy in the first and best sense, as meaning government by the people. He trusted the people thoroughly, and although the character of the voting population of the State gradually changed before his death, his faith in the people continued to be so strong that he looked forward to the outcome of every struggle, in which both sides had a fair hearing, as sure to be wise and right. Without this key to his votes and speeches they would be sadly misunderstood. He favored every proposition to limit the power of the executive and the legislature, except as the duty of legislative action to restrain encroachments upon the rights of citizens could be imposed upon the general assembly. His faith in the peo- ple led him to wish for them a larger share in the administration of justice, and to desire that every court should be to some extent a court of first instance, and he would have had every question of fact, in equity as well as at law, referred to a jury. He favored biennial sessions of the general assembly. It was said in favor of annual sessions that one of the principal means by which the people had been able to secure, generation after generation, a portion of their rights under the British government was frequent elections and meetings of public bodies. But while he conceded this, his answer was that in England all power exercised by legislative bodies was taken from the monarch ; here, from the people. There the people would not fail to gain by legislative action ; here they could not fail to lose. He opposed the proposition to give the gov- ernor a qualified veto, which was supported by the argument that it would prevent much ill-considered legislation. He admitted that inconsiderate leg- islation had been a sore evil, but in his opinion it arose from the fact that the people of Ohio had theretofore delegated too much power to the departments of government. The remedies that lie proposed were to take away patronage from the legislature, to require important laws to be submitted to a direct vote of the people, and to receive a majority of the votes of both branches of the general assembly by yeas and nays. The first and last of these remedies were applied by the Constitution with good results. He supported with success an
74
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
amendment to the report of the committee reducing the term of senators from four to two years. He proclaimed emphatically the opinion that the people should not delegate their power for any longer time than was neces- sary ; that the Senate ought to be as popular as the House ; that to say that the Senate ought to " hang back and hang on," to save the people from them- selves, was a part of the old argument that the people were incapable of self- government. He repudiated it from his very soul. He had not one particle of sympathy for it and it never could have any foundation whatever in his political creed. The committee on the legislative department reported a sec- tion forbidding the general assembly to pass retroactive laws, or laws impair- ing the obligations of contracts or their remedies. Judge Ranney opposed the introduction of the words "or their remedies," but gave the remainder of the section his cordial and effective support. The provision against retroactive legislation was then a new constitutional principle, the term " retroactive " being much more broad and comprehensive than the phrase "ex post facto," then in common use. It was urged by such able men as Judge Hitchcock that the power of the retroactive legislation had been exercised beneficially, but Judge Ranney pronounced it dangerous. In his judgment the power of curing errors, defects and omissions should be reposed in the courts, and so the con- vention ultimately decided. He considered that as men became more enlight- ened the stringent laws required to protect the rights of individuals in an uncultivated state of society became unnecessary, and the legislative power should be restrained in proportion. It was Judge Ranney who first proposed that the creditors of corporations should be secured by the individual liability of stockholders, although the form and extent of the proposition were some- what changed by amendment before its adoption. He met strong opposition from many delegates, who agreed with him that, as an abstract principle, it was right that stockholders should be responsible for the debts of their corpo- rations, but contended that it was impolitic to so provide in the Constitution, because it would check public improvements. With terrific sarcasm he replied that to barter away principles in order to push forward prematurely works of public improvement would be " making a most miserable swap," and with eloquence he denounced the abandonment of political principle in matters of legislation. He favored the proposition for the reformation of civil pro- cedure. His ideal of a lawyer was high. In his opinion no one could occupy a respectable position in the legal profession without a knowledge of law as a science, which could be attained only by the most assiduous labor and appli- cation. He wanted the profession to be relieved of the miserable jargon and mystery of forms and technicalities, that it might be left to pursue the noble study of the rights of man, the rights of property and all the varied relations of life subject to legal regulations. He took an active part in the discussions on education, the elective franchise, capital pun- ishment, levying poll taxes, finance and taxation, and the repeal of cor- porate franchises. His views upon all of these matters were pronounced, but the combined wisdom of all the delegates was wiser than the wisdom
75
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
of any one; so in the closing hour of the convention he had occasion to say that after a careful review of the whole instrument, of all its parts, of every line and word, he believed before God and man that it was one of the best, if not the best, of the Constitutions of American States ; and if the peo- ple of Ohio were not well governed thereafter, it would be the fault of the people, for the whole responsibility then and thereafter was upon them. He devoted his best thought and labor to the judicial article. His chief objection to it was that it removed the courts of last resort too far from the people. He objected to County Courts with such limited jurisdiction. He objected to the District Courts because they might be held at only one place in the district, and consequently lawyers and witnesses might be compelled to travel a hun- dred miles for trial. But most of all he objected to the Supreme Court, because it was to become substantially a Court of Errors. sitting at Columbus. He looked upon the circuit system as absolutely indispensable. In his judg- ment a mere paper court would become but little better than mere papers themselves, and might as well be filed away in some secure place in the Capi- tol. It was an insurmountable objection that no judge of the court was ever to participate in a trial, face a jury, see the parties, hear the witnesses, study human nature as exhibited in a trial at court, or mingle with the people. He also wanted the effect of the circuit system upon the people, because he believed that no court could acquire that power, dignity, influence and authority in the eyes of the people, which it ought to have, unless it acts among the people, performs its duties in their sight, and places in their view the practical workings of the system of judicial power which acts upon and protects their interests. He and others who agreed with him were able to secure the abandonment of the County Courts, for which Probate Courts were substituted, and a provision requiring District Courts to be held in every county. This was justly considered a great triumph, but they were unable to secure any substantial change in the duties of the Supreme Court judges, who, as business increased, were gradually withdrawn from District Court duty until they composed simply a Court of Errors sitting at Columbus. The old Supreme Court, under the leadership of Judge Peter Hitchcock, was one of the ablest courts in the United States, and was acknowledged as such where- ever the common law prevailed. It was remarkable for taking certain prac- tical views of the law which were widely accepted and applied to a great variety of cases. Judge Ranney found himself in thorough sympathy with them, as they satisfied at the same time his feeling of veneration for the princi- ples of the common law and his love of justice. One of his first opinions is an illustration of this. The owner of a judgment had accepted payment for about one-third of its amount, and. one hundred dollars for attorney's fees, in satis- faction of the whole, and he refused to enter the satisfaction. The court recognized the existence of the rule that the payment of a sum less than the sum due upon a liquidated judgment, although agreed to be received in full satisfaction, could not be insisted upon as such for want of a valuable consid- eration. Judge Ranney, in giving the opinion, would not set aside this rule ;
76
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
he had too much regard for well settled principles. But he had no hesitation in pronouncing both the reason and the rule purely technical, and said that there was nothing of principle left in the rule itself. He therefore held that the payment of one hundred dollars to the attorney instead of the judgment cred- itor, was a sufficient consideration to take the case out of the rule. "I am aware," he said, " that this is an exceedingly technical and unsatisfactory rea- son, but its justification is found in the fact that the plaintiff seeks to escape from his solemn engagement, by which he has obtained money from the defend- ant by the aid of a technicality. To prevent the consummation of such a fraud, he is met with technicalities nearly as absurd as that upon which he insists." A somewhat different illustration of the view which the court took of the force of the English Common Law, which also shows the effect of Judge Ranney's early life upon the formation of his opinions, is found in his opinion of cattle running at large. (C. H. & D. R. R. Co. vs. Watterson, 4 O. S. 424.) After holding that before any statutory inhibition the owner of domestic animals was not in fault in suffering them to run at large, he said :
"I am aware that this is flatly opposed to the common law doctrine upon the subject, and if the rule of the common law was enforced in this State it would be entirely inadmissible ; but it is not in force, and it is not in force because, in addition to being utterly inconsistent with our legislation, it lacks all the essential requisites that give vitality to any principle of the comm on law and is opposed to the common understanding, habits and even the necessi- ties of the people of the State. Indeed, with the strict enforcement of such a rule the State could never have settled. The lands were all heavily timbered, and the introduction of domestic animals, from the scarcity of herbage, requir- ing a wide range for their support, became indispensable before the forests could be removed. It would have been a novel proposition to a sturdy pioneer, when he listened in the morning for the bell that indicated where the oxen that had hauled his logs together for burning might be found, to have told him that his cattle were trespassers on every other man's unenclosed land upon which they might have fed during the night ; or that he could plant corn without enclosing the ground, and sue his neighbor whose cattle had eaten it up."
The tendency of the court in Judge Ranney's time to sustain the title of occupants of land under generally acknowledged titles whether strictly legal or not, as against those who sought to gain possession under technical rights after the lapse of years, is shown by his opinion in Lessee of Blake vs. Davis (20 Ohio, 231). The title of the plaintiff came from a married woman. The title of the defendant came through an administrator's sale which had no validity. An allotment had been made by the trustees of the district known as the Ohio Company's Purchase, and the plaintiff claimed that the woman who was his grantor was entitled to the benefit of the presumption that a deed had been delivered in pursuance of the allotment. The court conceded that the claim was well founded if the plaintiff was in a position to avail himself of it ; but after a careful review of all the authorities Judge Ranney said that the whole doctrine rested upon the idea that titles and possessions are to be quieted, not disturbed by it; that right and justice are protected in its applica-
F
77
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
tion, not injured ; in short, that it is only what ought to be done that can be considered as done. Referring to the plaintiff's grantor, he added : "She has no legal advantage, but now seeks by presumption to get it. To get it she must present an honest, not a technical case. She cannot in honesty take this land from the occupants while her father's estate was relieved by the very money that paid for it, and when she has acquiesced in the action of the admin- istrator for more than half a century. I know it is said that she is a mar- ried woman, but I have yet to learn that even a married woman has a right to do a wrong. We take from her none of her rights; we only prevent her from taking the rights of others." It was Judge Ranney who pronounced the opinion, reviewing all the authorities in England and Ainerica, in which the rule was settled for Ohio that the transfer of a negotiable promissory note secured by mortgage on real estate to a bona fide endorsee, does not entitle the holder to foreclose the mortgage when it appears that both note and mortgage were obtained by fraud. (Bailey vs. Smith, 14 O. S, 396.) " Mortgages," he said, " are not necessities of commerce ; they have none of the 'attributes of money ;' they do not pass in currency in the ordinary course of business, nor do any of the prompt and decisive rules of the law merchant apply to them. They are 'securities' or ' documents for debts,' used for the purposes of investment, and unavoidably requiring from those who would take them with prudence and safety, an inquiry into the value, condition and title of the property upon which they rest; nor have we the least apprehension that com- merce will be impeded by requiring the further inquiry of the mortgagor, whether he pretends to any defense, before a court will foreclose his right to defend against those which have been obtained by force or fraud." Perhaps the decision of most far-reaching influence and importance in every-day practi- cal affairs which he ever delivered, was in the case of Railroad Company against Keary (3 O. S., 201), which elaborated and made effective a rather weak decision of Judge Caldwell in 20 Ohio, 314. The latter held that when an employer places one person in his employment under the direction of another also in his employment, such employer is liable for injury to the person of the servant placed in the subordinate position caused by the negligence of his superior. Judge Ranney in the case of Keary, with the unanimous con- currence of the court, declared the rule and the principle thus tersely : "No one has the right to put in operation forces calculated to endanger life and property, without placing them under the control of a competent and ever- acting superintending intelligence. Whether he undertakes it, or procures another to represent him, the obligation remains the same, and a failure to comply with it in either case imposes the duty of making reparation for any injury that may ensue." W. S. Kerruish contributes the following from his personal recollections :
"I was a law student in the office of Backus & Noble at the time Judge Ranney removed from Warren to Cleveland and became the head of that firm in 1857, after his first resignation from the Supreme Bench. Not long there- after Mr. Backus was chosen as the Republican candidate for Supreme Judge
78
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
of the State, and the Democratic party selected from the same office as its can- didate for the same Bench, Judge Ranney. It was said at the time that these candidates were both alike not only surprised, but also each disappointed, at the result of the subsequent election-Mr. Backus at being defeated, and Judge Ranney at being elected. My knowledge of him began upon his accession to the above named firm. He was then in his early prime. Though compara- tively young, he had already attracted the attention of the Bar of the State for the grasp and vigor of his mind, for the marked ability with which he dealt with constitutional questions, and for his extraordinary judicial force and clear- ness. Anterior to his elevation to the Bench, as one of the younger members of the constitutional convention and as one of the most active of the com- mittee on judiciary in that body. the marked ability displayed by him in counsel and debate may be said to have first challenged general attention. Judge Peter Hitchcock, himself a member of that body and having for nearly a generation been an occupant of the Supreme Bench of Ohio, in the light of young Ran- ney's capability, and the constructive character of his talent, then prophesied that his young Democratic colleague would one day be the leader. An exam- ination of the two volumes containing the proceedings and debates of the con- vention will disclose that although in the first part of those proceedings Ranney's appearance was unfrequent-he was a modest man-yet before their deliberations were half ended he appears to have found his place, and the con- vention to have found its man ; and the result is that the admirable judicial system imbedded in our Constitution to-day bears the marks of no other man's genius so visibly as it does that of Rufus P. Ranney. So much by way of introduction, and as the background of a few impressions made on my mind by him when he took his place in the office of Backus & Noble. I was less brought into contact with him, he being the leading member of the firm, and to some extent a stranger in the city, than a law student under similar circumstances might be at the present time, perhaps. As I remember it he was not especially communicative or effusive. I do not mean that his manner was repellent, or that he was difficult of access or unduly dignified; but the impression the average young man would get of him in those days could be expressed as follows: 'There's a man who can tell us all about it; but state your point clearly, avoid all circumlocution, nonsense, and irrelevancy, and he will tell you all about it." There were old friends-friends of his earlier prac- tice, Judge Spaulding, Judge Tilden, Judge R. F. Paine, and others-with whom he delighted to unbend himself, and they often met, and notwithstand- ing the gravity and dignity of the interlocutors, the wit and banter and merri- ment and good humored personality, long to be remembered by the listener, would equal the best pages of Noctes Ambrosiana, and Judge Ranney was not behind any of them. I have an experience of his wonderful tact and deli- cacy in encouraging a beginner. It fell to my lot at the commencement of my practice to defend an old gentleman for a felony in which, if there were pretty strong symptoms of technical guilt, there was at least the mitigating circum- stance of ignorance and inexperience; and my client, becoming alive at last to the gravity of the situation, suggested that I get additional counsel. I selected Judge Ranney. He took the second place at the trial table, and not- withstanding my protest, firmly but courteously declined to take the first place. He omitted nothing, however, by way of suggestion, but clothed every sugges- tion with such outward circumstances of deference to his young associate as to carefully conceal any consciousness on his part of my inexperience or his superiority. In this his art in concealing art seemed to me perfect. In his argument, whether to court or jury, in the one respect so many seem to me to
79
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
fail, namely, observance of the due proportions of things, he had no superior. It was not his habit to come into court loaded down with books-one or two authorities, in which the principle was enunciated, generally sufficed him. His reasoning was masterly, and if his premises were admitted it was exceed- ingly difficult to escape his conclusions. He never indulged in the habit of dwelling on unimportant things. He never wearied the listener with com- plicated details about irrelevant matter. He saw the real issue at a glance, and dealt with it directly. The most marked characteristic of the man was his wonderful power of perception. I am unable to give instances ; but what otner men attain to by much study and the comparison of many data he appeared to arrive at instinctively and instantaneously. I have seen him come into the court room and, casting a quiet glance around among the persons present, he would seem to have divined in some mysterious fashion not only what had been going on, but what was in contemplation, almost as well as some others could ascertain the same facts by half an hour's cross-examina- tion "
In the course of a public address at the "Old Roman " banquet Judge Thurman thus referred to him :
" For forty years I have been a devoted friend of Rufus P. Ranney, and I firmly believe that he has been mine. It may therefore be permitted to me to say that of all the great lawyers I have ever known, no one ever seemed to me to be so happily constituted for the office of a judge as Rufus P. Ranney. With the quickness of apprehension almost supernatural, with the power of analysis that Pascal might have envied, with an integrity that never for a moment was or could be brought into doubt, with a courage that never per- mitted him to fear to do what he believed to be right, with an industry that brought all his great qualities into successful operation, and with a mind culti- vated beyond the sphere of his profession, he is, in the eyes of those who know him as I know him, a man of whom Ohio is and always will be most justly proud. He is a star in her firmament that will never be blotted out."
Judge Ranney never sought to appear learned, but rather to adapt his argument to the comprehension of the weakest member of the profession and of a layman. The course of his reasoning is readily followed to a conclusion which is impregnable. His style is charming, his choice of words felicitous. Clearness of expression is matched by purity of diction. His opinions are not more noteworthy for the soundness of the conclusions reached than for the beautiful simplicity of the language in which they are clothed. His tastes were simple and domestic. His home life, in its affection, confidence and constancy, exhibited the gentler traits of his strong character. His attach- ments to wife and children were of the tenderest and most enduring quality. He married Adeline W. Warner, who at the age of seventy-eight survives and is greatly beloved. Mrs. Ranney was a daughter of Judge Jonathan Warner, of Jefferson, Ashtabula county, who was an associate judge of the Common Pleas, and one of the pioneers of the State. Their family consisted of six children, four sons and two daughters. Both daughters and two of the sons are dead. One son, John R. Ranney, was educated in the law, but is not now engaged in practice. The other son, Charles P. Ranney, is a successful busi- ness man of Cleveland.
80
BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO.
WASHINGTON W. BOYNTON, Cleveland. Honorable W. W. Boynton, ex-judge of the Supreme Court, was born in Russia township, Lorain county, Ohio, on the 27th day of January, 1833. His father, Lewis D. Boynton, a farmer, came to Ohio from Maine in 1826, settling in that township. He cleared a large portion of the land in Russia township. In the early times he was a brigadier general of militia and took an active interest in public affairs. On the paternal side Judge Boynton is a direct descendant from Sir Matthew Boynton, who was created a baronet on the 25th of May, 1618, was a member of the English Parliament in the reign of Charles I. and sided with the Repub- licans during the civil wars. His second son, Matthew, who married Eliza- beth, daughter of Robert Stapleton, came to America about 1632, settling in New England. His mother, Ruth Wellman, was born in the State of Maine. She was of English extraction, her ancestors also settling in New England at an early date. Washington's education was in the common schools and later in the academy, known in those days as the select school. He did not have the advantage of a collegiate education. At the early age of sixteen he com- menced teaching school. He taught during the winters at first, and from 1855 to 1857 a select school in Amherst township. During this period and for some time thereafter he was the examiner of teachers for Lorain county. From his earliest boy hood the neighbors used to say he was cut out for a lawyer, and he took to the profession naturally. Thus, having a taste for the law, he commenced its study during the time he was teaching, under the direction of his uncle, Elbridge Gerry Boynton, who was a prominent lawyer. While teaching he was admitted to the Bar, but did not regularly take up the practice of law until 1858, when he moved to Elyria and formed a partnership with General Sheldon. In 1861 General Sheldon went into the army, so this partnership was dissolved. From the spring of 1859 to the fall of 1863 he was prosecuting attorney for Lorain county. During his term of office he formed a partner- ship with John C. Hale, then a promising young attorney. This partnership also continued but a short time. As the subject of this sketch was in ill health, he was compelled to give up his practice and go west, young Hale becoming prosecuting attorney. His health having become practically restored, he returned home and formed a partnership with L. B. Smith. This partnership continued until February 9, 1869, when Governor R. B. Hayes, afterwards President of the United States, appointed him judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the Fourth Judicial District, comprising the counties of Lorain, Medina and Summit. He remained on the Common Pleas Bench until Feb- ruary 9, 1877, when he took. his seat on the Supreme Court Bench, having been elected at the fall election of 1876. He discharged the duties of justice of the Supreme Court for nearly five years when, again, owing to ill health he was forced to resign. He came to Cleveland, but his reputation as a great jurist and lawyer preceded him ; so on opening an office he found plenty of clients. His practice grew so rapidly that he soon realized the necessity of assistance and he invited his former partner, Judge Hale (who had succeeded him on the Common Pleas Bench), to become his partner. After due consideration
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.