Maloney v. Sacks
This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 237 (Maloney v. Sacks) 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.
Opinion
This action was not brought in conformity with Section 2731.04, Revised Code, which requires that an “application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St., 170.
Appellant was removed from the penitentiary to the Allen County jail under one of the exceptions named in Section 2725.24, Revised Code, thus relieving the warden from liability thereunder. The section reads in part: “A person committed to prison, or in the custody of an officer for a criminal matter, shall not be removed therefrom into the custody of another officer, unless by legal process, or unless the prisoner * * * by order of the proper court, is removed from one place to another within this state for trial # * (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, mandamus may not ordinarily be employed as a substitute for an action at law to recover money.
Appellant has not shown a clear legal right to the writ of mandamus.
[239]*239The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-sacks-ohio-1962.