State ex rel. Central Stores Co. v. Maiden

162 Ohio St. (N.S.) 167
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 27, 1954·No. No. 34092·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion to attach the answer and cross-petition to the petition in prohibition is allowed and it is unnecessary to pass on the motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as the court is disposing of- the ease on the demurrer.

[169]*169The determinative question presented is whether, under the facts, the company is entitled to a writ of prohibition. The writ will ordinarily be awarded where there is no other adequate remedy and will not be awarded as a substitute for appeal or to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Winnefeld, v. Court of Common Pleas, 159 Ohio St., 225, 112 N. E. (2d), 27.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, O. J., Middleton, Taet, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart and Lamneck, JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Central Stores Co. v. Maiden, 162 Ohio St. (N.S.) 167 (Ohio 1954).

162 Ohio St. (N.S.) 167 (State ex rel. Central Stores Co. v. Maiden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.