# State ex rel. Herron v. Smith

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 15, 1886 · 44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8341786

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Herron v. Smith
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 15, 1886
- **Citations:** 44 Ohio St. (N.S.) 348
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eollett
- **Judges:** Eollett, Minshall, Owen, Spear
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8341786

## Opinion text

Eollett, J.
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Owen, C. J.
Other grounds of dissent need not be discussed, as the main question relates to the violation of an express provision of the constitution.
The facts involved in this case are historical, and they are known to the intelligent people of the state, and they are boasted of by the parties implicated and by their defenders.
Though but three months have passed since the majority holding was made in this case and their opinion was published, when we were notified there might be a reply to the dissent, it seemed necessary to bring forth the elaborate opinion of Spear, J., striving to ignore and, if possible, to get away from their own basis of facts for their holding, that this law is constitutional, although certain votes “necessary to the number of votes required by the constitution for the passage of the law,” were given by certain persons who were seated in the senate “ by less-than a constitutional quorumand that “ the members so seated are, at least, de facto members;” as stated in propositions “1” and “2” of their syllabus.
This holding is based only upon such facts. If no such basis had been presented, no such holding could have been made.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8341786. Public record. Not legal advice.