State ex rel. Mansfield Telephone Co. v. Mayer

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Mansfield Telephone Co. v. Mayer

215 N.E.2d 375, 5 Ohio St. 2d 222, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 428, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 417

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 16, 1966

DocketNos. 39575 and 39811

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 375 (State ex rel. Mansfield Telephone Co. v. Mayer) 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. Mansfield Telephone Co. v. Mayer, 215 N.E.2d 375, 5 Ohio St. 2d 222, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 428, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 417 (Ohio 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rule is firmly established that the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and, as such, possesses the authority initially to determine its own jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter in an action before it, subject to the right of appeal; and generally prohibition, an extraordinary remedy entertained with caution, will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Assn., v. Common Pleas Court of Meigs County, 124 Ohio St. 493, 499, 179 N. E. 415, 417; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N. E. 2d 464; and State, ex rel. Bier, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 175 Ohio St. 355, 194 N. E. 2d 849.

[224]*224Respondents point ont that in the injunction actions referred to relator herein has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas by motion, demurrer or answer, and that such court has been given no opportunity to pass on its own jurisdiction over the subject matter or persons involved.

In a situation like this we need go no further. The demurrer to the petition should be and is sustained in case No. 39575, and Multi-Channel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be and is sustained in case No. 39811.

Judgments accordingly.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The rule is firmly established that the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and, as such, possesses the authority initially to determine its own jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter in an action before it, subject to the right of appeal; and generally prohibition, an extraordinary remedy entertained with caution, will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Assn., v. Common Pleas Court of Meigs County, 124 Ohio St. 493, 499, 179 N. E. 415, 417; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N. E. 2d 464; and State, ex rel. Bier, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 175 Ohio St. 355, 194 N. E. 2d 849.

[224]*224Respondents point ont that in the injunction actions referred to relator herein has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas by motion, demurrer or answer, and that such court has been given no opportunity to pass on its own jurisdiction over the subject matter or persons involved.

In a situation like this we need go no further. The demurrer to the petition should be and is sustained in case No. 39575, and Multi-Channel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be and is sustained in case No. 39811.

Judgments accordingly.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 375, 5 Ohio St. 2d 222, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 428, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mansfield-telephone-co-v-mayer-ohio-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack