State Ex Rel. Cleveland Trust Co. v. Pethtel
Opinion
Counsel for relator admit in their briefs that the writ of prohibition ordinarily is granted only when there is no other adequate remedy, but urge that an exception should be made in this case to prevent extended and expensive litigation — in other words to decide cases in advance.
We adhere to the principle that the high prerogative writ of prohibition will not issue where there is another adequate remedy. Silliman v. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St., 338, 185 N. E., 420, and cases therein cited.
The demurrer to the petition is sustained and leave to plead further is given.
Demurrer sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
30 N.E.2d 991 (State Ex Rel. Cleveland Trust Co. v. Pethtel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.