State ex rel. Barnes v. Johnson

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Barnes v. Johnson

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 438

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 2, 1918

DocketNo. 15908

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 438 (State ex rel. Barnes v. Johnson) 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. Barnes v. Johnson, 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 438 (Ohio 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The right to a writ of prohibition restraining a judge from hearing a petition and application filed in pursuance of Sections 6140 to 6168, General Code, commonly known as the Jones Local Option Law, does not accrue by reason of an order of such judge permitting the withdrawal of a petition previously filed covering the same territory, particularly where the respondent had found that the petition last filed contained a greater number of qualified electors’ signatures than did the petition first filed. The statute conferred upon the respondent full and complete jurisdiction in the matter before him. If the relator were aggrieved by the finding and conclusion of the respondent, he would have a complete and adequate remedy by proceeding in error. The demurrer is therefore sustained.

Demurrer sustained.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

The right to a writ of prohibition restraining a judge from hearing a petition and application filed in pursuance of Sections 6140 to 6168, General Code, commonly known as the Jones Local Option Law, does not accrue by reason of an order of such judge permitting the withdrawal of a petition previously filed covering the same territory, particularly where the respondent had found that the petition last filed contained a greater number of qualified electors’ signatures than did the petition first filed. The statute conferred upon the respondent full and complete jurisdiction in the matter before him. If the relator were aggrieved by the finding and conclusion of the respondent, he would have a complete and adequate remedy by proceeding in error. The demurrer is therefore sustained.

Demurrer sustained.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barnes-v-johnson-ohio-1918.