State ex rel. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Pryatel

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Pryatel

166 N.E.2d 927, 86 Ohio Law. Abs. 100, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 857

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided May 5, 1960·No. No. 25184·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Demurrer sustained for the reason that the petition, having plead that the case filed in the Court of Common Pleas is between the same parties and involves the same subject matter in the case subsequently filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court, fails to state a cause of action under which this court acquires jurisdiction in an action in mandamus to direct the Cleveland Municipal Court to vacate an order staying proceedings in that court. Parkison v. Victor, Judge, 105 Ohio App., 200, syllabus one:

“1. As between courts having concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the court whose power is first invoked by the commencement of proper proceedings, and the service of the required process, acquires the right to adjudicate upon the whose issue and settle the rights of the parties, to the exclusion [101] of all other tribunals, unless the action is terminated by the parties before such final determination.” ,

See also Rush v. Maple Heights, 167 Ohio St., 221; Brownewell v. Columbus Clay Mfg. Co., 166 Ohio St., 324 at 327.

Hurd, P. J., Kovachy and Skeel, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Demurrer sustained for the reason that the petition, having plead that the case filed in the Court of Common Pleas is between the same parties and involves the same subject matter in the case subsequently filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court, fails to state a cause of action under which this court acquires jurisdiction in an action in mandamus to direct the Cleveland Municipal Court to vacate an order staying proceedings in that court. Parkison v. Victor, Judge, 105 Ohio App., 200, syllabus one:

“1. As between courts having concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the court whose power is first invoked by the commencement of proper proceedings, and the service of the required process, acquires the right to adjudicate upon the whose issue and settle the rights of the parties, to the exclusion [101] of all other tribunals, unless the action is terminated by the parties before such final determination.” ,

See also Rush v. Maple Heights, 167 Ohio St., 221; Brownewell v. Columbus Clay Mfg. Co., 166 Ohio St., 324 at 327.

Hurd, P. J., Kovachy and Skeel, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Pryatel, 166 N.E.2d 927, 86 Ohio Law. Abs. 100, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 857 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

166 N.E.2d 927 (State ex rel. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Pryatel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related