
    Wallace v. Leiter et al.
    
      Uniform operation of laws — Section 26, Article 2 of Constitution — , Applies to laws affecting jurisdiction of circuit court■ — Act of April 13, 1900 (94 O. L., 137), invalid — Constitutional law.
    
    1. A law which affects the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the state is necessarily a law of a general nature, and, by force of of Section 26 of Article 2 of the constitution, must have a uniform operation throughout the state.
    2. That clause of the act of April 13, 1900 (94 Ohio Laws, 137), which provides that litigants shall have the right of appeal from the probate court of certain counties to the circuit court in partition and other proceedings violates Section 26 of Article 2 of the constitution, and is invalid.
    (No. 9872
    Decided April 16, 1907.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Richland county.
    On November 7, 1902, there was pending in the probate court of Richland a proceeding in partition wherein the defendant in error David B. Leiter was plaintiff and the defendants in error David S. Leiter and others, including plaintiff in error James H. Wallace, were defendants. On the date above named the. cause was tried and a judgment and decree entered finding and adjudging the issues against the said Wallace and in favor of the other parties, and making order of partition accordingly. Wallace gave notice of appeal. The court, believing the cause appealable, fixed the bond at one hundred dollars. Thereupon bond for appeal was duly given and the cause in form appealed to the circuit court. In that court the defendants in error interposed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court had no constitutional jurisdiction to entertain the same. The court thereupon sustained the motion and ordered the cause stricken from the docket. James H. Wallace brings error.
    
      Messrs. Laser, Huston & Marquis, for plaintiff in error,
    cited and commented upon the following authorities:
    
      Kislingbery v. Donovan, 8 N. P., 476; Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St., 523; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St., 35; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S., 80; Suther land on Statutory Construction, Section 169; Section 525-1, Revised Statutes.
    
      Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe, for defendants in error,
    cited and commented upon the following authorities:
    Section 26, Article 2, Constitution; Sections 1, 4, 6 and 8, Article 4, Constitution; Giesy v. Railroad Co., 4 Ohio St., 319; State ex rel. v. Bloch, 65 Ohio St., 391; Kelley v. State, 6 Ohio St., 269; Meyer v. Dempsey, Trustee, 62 Ohio St., 637; Gill v. Sealbridge, 17 C. C., 390; Kislingbery v. Donovan, 8 N. P., 476; Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St., 607; Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 1 Ohio St., 77; Bank v. Wright, Auditor, 6 Ohio St., 319; Commissioners v. Nichols, 14 Ohio St., 260; State ex rel. v. Trustees, 8 Ohio St. 400; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sections 169, 171 and 217; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St., 44; Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St., 523; Sections 525-1, 2236, 6454 and 6708, Revised Statutes.
   Spear, J.

The proceeding in this court being one in error to the action of the circuit court, the only question presented for the determination of this court is whether or not the circuit court erred in refusing to take jurisdiction of the cause on appeal and striking it from the docket; in other words, did the circuit court acquire jurisdiction to try and determine the controversy between the parties by reason of the attempted appeal?

At the time the appeal was taken the statute on the subject (section 525-1, Revised Statutes) prescribed that the probate court in certain counties, including 'Richland, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas in certain defined proceedings, including partition, and that litigants shall have the same right of appeal and of error from the probate court to the circuit court as is allowed now by appeal- and error proceedings in similar cases from the common pleas court to the circuit court; and it was under favor of this statute that the plaintiff in error undertook to carry the cause to the circuit court. This section was amended April 20, 1904 (97 Ohio Laws, 113), which amendment provides for appeals and error to the common pleas instead of the circuit court, but that amendment does not affect the question before us.

The ground on which the jurisdiction of the circuit court is assailed is that the statute, as then existing, undertakes to clothe the circuit court of Richland and the other counties named in the statute with jurisdiction not conferred upon the circuit courts of the remaining counties of the state, and, in our judgment, the point is well taken. The constitutional provision applicable to the question is section 26 of Article 2, which is that “all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the state.” It is no longer an open question in Ohio that laws which relate to the organization and jurisdiction of the circuit court are laws of a general nature, that court being established by the constitution, which, requires its existence in every county of the state, and that at least one term in each year shall be held in each county. Those courts, therefore, exercise a most important agency in the administration of justice, and necessarily have, within the limits prescribed by law, jurisdiction over the persons and property of the entire population. It would needlessly encumber the record to cite all the cases which justify, if indeed they do not compel, this conclusion, but attention may be called to Kelley v. The State, 6 Ohio St., 269, the principle of which applies to the case at bar.

The circuit court did not err in dismissing the áppeal, and its judgment will be

Affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers .and Davis, JJ., concur.  