State ex rel. Banaszkewycz v. Merrick

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Banaszkewycz v. Merrick

238 N.E.2d 802, 15 Ohio St. 2d 234, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 201, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 403

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 17, 1968

DocketNo. 68-115

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 802 (State ex rel. Banaszkewycz v. Merrick) 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

State ex rel. Banaszkewycz v. Merrick, 238 N.E.2d 802, 15 Ohio St. 2d 234, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 201, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 403 (Ohio 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator filed his motion in the Probate Court, apparently relying on the authority of Section 2729.01, Revised Code, which states:

[235]*235“When the records, dockets, journals, and files, or any part thereof, of any Probate Court have been lost * * * upon the application of a party interested * * # the [Probate] Court may order the restoration of any * * * record of any proceeding or document required to be recorded or filed * *

Thus, the Probate Court had power to grant such motion. The question of whether the motion should be granted was decided by the Probate Court adversely to relator. Its judgment was affirmed. The matter is now res judicata. The writ of mandamus will not lie to grant relator another appeal from that decision. See State, ex rel. Luckhaupt, v. McClelland (1949), 151 Ohio St. 17, 84 N. E. 2d 275.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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