State ex rel. Estes v. Marriott

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Estes v. Marriott

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 4, 1959·No. No. 36122·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question presented is whether the petition in this case is demurrable. This court is of the opinion that it is. It does not state operative facts which show that relator has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

A writ of prohibition will ordinarily not be allowed where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. State, ex [48]*48rel. Rhodes, Aud., v. Solether, Judge, 162 Ohio St., 559, 124 N. E. (2d), 411.

Demurrer sustained and writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The question presented is whether the petition in this case is demurrable. This court is of the opinion that it is. It does not state operative facts which show that relator has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

A writ of prohibition will ordinarily not be allowed where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. State, ex [48]*48rel. Rhodes, Aud., v. Solether, Judge, 162 Ohio St., 559, 124 N. E. (2d), 411.

Demurrer sustained and writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Estes v. Marriott, 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46 (Ohio 1959).

Pincite

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46 (State ex rel. Estes v. Marriott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.