Opinion Per Curiam. pencil be counted the relator's petition contains an insufficient number of signatures to entitle him to a place on the ballot in said election. The relator is not entitled to such writ of mandamus unless it clearly appear that the performance of the act sought by him is one "which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station." Section 207 of the charter of the city of Columbus, duly adopted in pursuance of authority conferred by the constitution, having reference to the requirements of nominating petitions for municipal offices, specifically requires that "Each signer to a petition shall sign his name in ink or indelible pencil." Such provision controls and that requirement must be regarded as mandatory, and therefore signatures not in compliance therewith need not be and should not be considered or counted in determining the sufficiency of a nominating petition. It appears upon the face of these petitions that in the respect referred to they were not in conformity with the requirements of the law, and therefore the board of deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections was not required to deem them valid, although no objection had been made in writing within five days after the filing thereof. Sections 5005 and 5006, General Code, must be read and construed together. The latter section, as amended in 103 Ohio Laws, 844, provides that "Such objections or other questions, arising in the course of the nomination of candidates, shall be considered as follows: * * * For township or Opinion Per Curiam. municipal offices, justices of the peace, or members of the board of education, by the board of deputy state supervisors of the county, and its decision shall be final." Not only would the board have the inherent right, but authority is conferred upon it, without objection filed, to reject and refuse to act upon nominating petitions which clearly are not in conformance with the requirements of the law. The conceded facts show that the relator has not filed such a petition as entitled him to a place on the official ballot. The act he seeks to have performed by the deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections is not specially enjoined upon them by the law, and his prayer for a writ of mandamus must therefore be denied. Writ refused. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, DONAHUE, WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., con cur. Opinion Per Curiam. CADWELL V. CADWELL. Courts of appeals-Appeal and error-Jurisdiction in alimony case -Must be challenged before decree entered, when. (No. 14848-Decided October 13, 1915.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county. Mr. Richard H. Lee and Messrs. Doyle, Lewis, Lewis & Emery, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Berkley Pearce and Messrs. Marshall & Fraser, for defendant in error. BY THE COURT. In 1912 the defendant in error, Herma M. Cadwell, filed her petition for alimony in the Lucas county common pleas, where the same was denied for want of jurisdiction on May 15, 1913. On June 12, 1913, she perfected her appeal to the court of appeals of that county, where the case was heard upon the evidence, and, after intervening interlocutory orders, alimony in gross was allowed her in that court in the sum of $15,000, for which execution was awarded. This decree was made January 4, 1915. A motion for new trial was filed and overruled on January 25, 1915. The next day plaintiff in error, Frank W. Cadwell, moved to dismiss the action and to vacate the decree for the reason that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction in alimony cases under Article IV, Section 6, of the Constitution of Ohio as amended. Opinion Per Curiam. The record discloses that from the time the appeal was perfected on June 12, 1913, until January 25, 1915, no question was made by the plaintiff in error as to the jurisdiction of the court of appeals, on appeal, but on the contrary he consented to the submission of the case until final decree, after which, and for the first time, he endeavored to raise the jurisdictional question. That this cannot be done has been expressly held in Drake et al., Trustees, v. Tucker et al., 83 Ohio St., 97, and the reasons therein stated apply whether the jurisdiction is statutory or constitutional. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. NICHOLS, C. J., JOHNSON, WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. Statement of the Case. THE STATE, EX REL. THE CITY OF DAYTON, V. PATTERSON, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ET AL. Budget commissioners—Adjustment of taxes and reduction of budgets-Mandamus does not lie-To control discretion or correct error of judgment, when. Under the provisions of Section 5649-3a, General Code, the budget commissioners, in the adjustment of the various amounts of taxes to be raised in a taxing district and in reducing the estimates contained in the budgets, are called upon to exercise their official judgment and discretion. In the absence of fraud, bad faith or abuse of discretion it is not within the power of the court to interfere, and an action in mandamus will not lie to control such discretion or correct an error of judgment. (No. 15014-Decided October 29, 1915.) IN MANDAMUS. This is a proceeding in mandamus, originating in this court, brought by the city of Dayton against the budget commissioners of Montgomery county. The cause was submitted to the court upon a demurrer to the petition, upon the grounds that there was a defect of parties defendant and that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On or before the first Monday in June, 1915, the relator, the city of Dayton, submitted to the county auditor of Montgomery county its annual budget, setting forth in itemized form an estimate stating the amount of money needed by it for its wants for the year 1916, in which it appeared that the sum of $969,222.08 was required for operating expenses and for interest and sinking fund for in |