State ex rel. Gallion v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Gallion v. Court of Common Pleas

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 103

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1964

DocketNo. 38328

StatusPublished

This text of 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 103 (State ex rel. Gallion v. Court of Common Pleas) 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. Gallion v. Court of Common Pleas, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 103 (Ohio 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator contends that the respondent “had no authority or jurisdiction to enter judgment for ‘separate maintenance’ or alimony alone without a hearing in open court and upon testimony of plaintiff or admissions of the defendant.”

It appears from the record that the respondent had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and there is no allegation in the petition to the contrary. Relator is afforded an adequate remedy by way of appeal to review the errors of which he complains. Prohibition may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Jones, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Jones, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Matthias, J.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator contends that the respondent “had no authority or jurisdiction to enter judgment for ‘separate maintenance’ or alimony alone without a hearing in open court and upon testimony of plaintiff or admissions of the defendant.”

It appears from the record that the respondent had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and there is no allegation in the petition to the contrary. Relator is afforded an adequate remedy by way of appeal to review the errors of which he complains. Prohibition may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Jones, O’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Jones, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Matthias, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gallion-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1964.