Harding v. Eichinger

Ohio Supreme Court

Harding v. Eichinger

57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371

DecidedJanuary 18, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371 (Harding v. Eichinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harding v. Eichinger, 57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371 (Ohio 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The plaintiff below mistook his remedy. The petition' shows that Harding, and not Eichinger, was in possession of the office when the action was [374]*374commenced. . Injunction may be resorted to by the incumbent of a public office to protect his possession against interference by an adverse claimant until the latter establishes his title, but is not the appropriate remedy to try the title. Reemelin v. Mosby, 47 Ohio St., 570.

Quo wa/rranto, is the proper form of remedy.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, and petition dismissed-.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court:

The plaintiff below mistook his remedy. The petition' shows that Harding, and not Eichinger, was in possession of the office when the action was [374]*374commenced. . Injunction may be resorted to by the incumbent of a public office to protect his possession against interference by an adverse claimant until the latter establishes his title, but is not the appropriate remedy to try the title. Reemelin v. Mosby, 47 Ohio St., 570.

Quo wa/rranto, is the proper form of remedy.

Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, and petition dismissed-.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-eichinger-ohio-1898.