State Ex Rel. Horvath v. Rider

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Horvath v. Rider

91 N.E.2d 885, 153 Ohio St. 417, 153 Ohio St. (N.S.) 417, 41 Ohio Op. 423, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 490

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 19, 1950

Docket31894

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.E.2d 885 (State Ex Rel. Horvath v. Rider) 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. Horvath v. Rider, 91 N.E.2d 885, 153 Ohio St. 417, 153 Ohio St. (N.S.) 417, 41 Ohio Op. 423, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 490 (Ohio 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Only two defenses challenged by the demurrer need be considered in deciding the present cause.

The fifth defense contains allegations that at the time the relator filed the petition in this court there was and still is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County an action against the relator and the respondents, in which action the plaintiffs allege they are in possession of the premises; that relator filed a cross-petition in that action alleging he is owner of a leasehold estate in the premises and entitled to the possession thereof; and that prior to the filing of this mandamus proceeding the Court of Common *419 Pleas enjoined relator from molesting, interfering with or hindering the plaintiffs in their use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of that action to quiet title of plaintiffs to possession of the premises, under a claimed right to a leasehold estate therein.

The sixth defense states that there is available to the relator an adequate and sufficient remedy under the ordinary processes of the law.

The facts in the present mandamus proceeding bring it within the general principle announced in State, ex rel. Akron Coal Co., v. Bd. of Directors, Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 136 Ohio St., 485, 26 N. E. (2d), 766, in which this court held in the syllabus : “Where a prior action is pending between the same litigants, involving the same subject matter, in a court having jurisdiction, a mandamus proceeding in another court is barred, unless it is plain that adequate relief is not obtainable in the prior case.” See, also, State, ex rel. First Natl. Bank, North Baltimore, Ohio, v. Village of Botkins, 141 Ohio St., 437, 48 N. E. (2d), 865; State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Industrial Commission, 144 Ohio St., 159, 57 N. E. (2d), 775; State, ex rel. Kurtz, v. Bliss et al., Deputy State Supervisors of Elections, Summit County, 147 Ohio St., 211, 70 N. E. (2d), 653.

The demurrer of the relator to the answer is overruled and a writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

Only two defenses challenged by the demurrer need be considered in deciding the present cause.

The fifth defense contains allegations that at the time the relator filed the petition in this court there was and still is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County an action against the relator and the respondents, in which action the plaintiffs allege they are in possession of the premises; that relator filed a cross-petition in that action alleging he is owner of a leasehold estate in the premises and entitled to the possession thereof; and that prior to the filing of this mandamus proceeding the Court of Common *419 Pleas enjoined relator from molesting, interfering with or hindering the plaintiffs in their use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of that action to quiet title of plaintiffs to possession of the premises, under a claimed right to a leasehold estate therein.

The sixth defense states that there is available to the relator an adequate and sufficient remedy under the ordinary processes of the law.

The facts in the present mandamus proceeding bring it within the general principle announced in State, ex rel. Akron Coal Co., v. Bd. of Directors, Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 136 Ohio St., 485, 26 N. E. (2d), 766, in which this court held in the syllabus : “Where a prior action is pending between the same litigants, involving the same subject matter, in a court having jurisdiction, a mandamus proceeding in another court is barred, unless it is plain that adequate relief is not obtainable in the prior case.” See, also, State, ex rel. First Natl. Bank, North Baltimore, Ohio, v. Village of Botkins, 141 Ohio St., 437, 48 N. E. (2d), 865; State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Industrial Commission, 144 Ohio St., 159, 57 N. E. (2d), 775; State, ex rel. Kurtz, v. Bliss et al., Deputy State Supervisors of Elections, Summit County, 147 Ohio St., 211, 70 N. E. (2d), 653.

The demurrer of the relator to the answer is overruled and a writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E.2d 885, 153 Ohio St. 417, 153 Ohio St. (N.S.) 417, 41 Ohio Op. 423, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-horvath-v-rider-ohio-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack