State Ex Rel. Mann v. Floyd

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Mann v. Floyd

34 N.E.2d 196, 138 Ohio St. 253, 138 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253, 20 Ohio Op. 304, 1941 Ohio LEXIS 453

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1941

Docket28548

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.E.2d 196 (State Ex Rel. Mann v. Floyd) 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. Mann v. Floyd, 34 N.E.2d 196, 138 Ohio St. 253, 138 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253, 20 Ohio Op. 304, 1941 Ohio LEXIS 453 (Ohio 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Section 11347, General Code, relating to rule days, reads: “Upon such terms as are just, the court * * *, for good cause shown, may extend the time for filing any pleading. ’ ’

The writ of mandamus “may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.” (Italics ours.) Section 12285, General Code. See, also, State, ex rel. Frye, Exr., v. MacConkey, Judge, 136 Ohio St., 462, 26 N. E. (2d), 457; State, ex rel. White, v. Jewell, Judge, 132 Ohio St., 300, 7 N. E. (2d), 410.

Although this court strongly disapproves of the *255 dilatory proceedings below, tbe demurrer to tbe petition is sustained and a writ denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur. Matthias, J., not participating.

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