State Ex Rel. General Exchange Ins. v. Crawford

Ohio Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. General Exchange Ins. v. Crawford

131 N.E.2d 661, 99 Ohio App. 129, 58 Ohio Op. 215, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 615

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 1955

Docket2326

StatusPublished

This text of 131 N.E.2d 661 (State Ex Rel. General Exchange Ins. v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. General Exchange Ins. v. Crawford, 131 N.E.2d 661, 99 Ohio App. 129, 58 Ohio Op. 215, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 615 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted on a demurrer to a petition for a writ of procedendo. The petition alleges that an action in which relators were parties plaintiff was duly set for trial and that three days before the trial date, upon motion of defendant, a continuance was granted by respondent.

The granting or refusing of a continuance rests within the .sound discretion of the trial court. 9 Ohio Jurisprudence, 202, Section 7; State, ex rel. Buck, v. McCabe, 140 Ohio St., 535, 537, 45 N. E. (2d), 763. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the action of the court is plainly erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Norton v. Norton, 111 Ohio St., 262, 145 N. E., 253. The allegations that relators have no adequate remedy at law and that the trial court abused its discretion are legal conclusions and are not admitted on demurrer. Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St., 170, 60 N. E. (2d), 666. Relators fail to allege facts which constitute an abuse of discretion; neither does it appear that they are without an adequate remedy at law.

Demurrer sustained.

Miller, P. J., Hornbeck and Wiseman, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted on a demurrer to a petition for a writ of procedendo. The petition alleges that an action in which relators were parties plaintiff was duly set for trial and that three days before the trial date, upon motion of defendant, a continuance was granted by respondent.

The granting or refusing of a continuance rests within the .sound discretion of the trial court. 9 Ohio Jurisprudence, 202, Section 7; State, ex rel. Buck, v. McCabe, 140 Ohio St., 535, 537, 45 N. E. (2d), 763. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the action of the court is plainly erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Norton v. Norton, 111 Ohio St., 262, 145 N. E., 253. The allegations that relators have no adequate remedy at law and that the trial court abused its discretion are legal conclusions and are not admitted on demurrer. Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St., 170, 60 N. E. (2d), 666. Relators fail to allege facts which constitute an abuse of discretion; neither does it appear that they are without an adequate remedy at law.

Demurrer sustained.

Miller, P. J., Hornbeck and Wiseman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 N.E.2d 661, 99 Ohio App. 129, 58 Ohio Op. 215, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-general-exchange-ins-v-crawford-ohioctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack