# Pennsylvania ex rel. Department of Public Assistance v. Mong

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 13, 1954 · 160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 455

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8353984

## Case

- **Full name:** The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel. Department of Public Assistance, Mercer County Board of Assistance v. Mong
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 13, 1954
- **Citations:** 160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 455
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weygandt
- **Judges:** Hart, Lamneck, Middleton, Stewart, Taet, Weygandt, Zimmerman
- **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/8353984

## Opinion text

Weygandt, C. J.,
concurs for the fundamental reason that the terms of Section 12431, General Code (Section 2901.42, Eevised Code), are specific in providing a defense for a person whose parent abandoned him while he was under sixteen years of age, and the General Assembly of Ohio indicated no intention to limit the important effect thereof by the merely general provisions of Section 8007-7, General Code (Section 3115.03, Eevised Code).
Taet, J., dissenting. Although I have grave doubt as to the validity of section 7 (Section 8007-7, General Code) to the extent that appellant seeks to have it applied in the instant case, unfortunately neither party, either in the Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals or this court, contended that it was unconstitutional. Likewise, the Court of Appeals did not pass upon the constitutionality of that section. This court should not therefore base its decision upon the conclusion that the words of section 7 should not be given effect. If the words of section 7 are applied to the *460 facts of this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. It is, therefore, with great reluctance that 1 must dissent from the judgment.
Hart and Stewart, JJ., concur in the foregoing-dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8353984. Public record. Not legal advice.