Ohio Supreme Court, 1949

State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Conn

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 9, 1949 · Wbygandt, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner, Tabt

84 N.E.2d 213; 151 Ohio St. 8; 151 Ohio St. (N.S.) 8; 38 Ohio Op. 479; 1949 Ohio LEXIS 390 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. John F. McCrystal and Mr. James L. McCrystal , for relator. Mr. George W. Slaughter , prosecuting attorney, for respondents.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The foregoing summary of facts is sufficient to demonstrate that relator seeks a writ of prohibition either to prevent an erroneous decision or as a substitute for an appeal.

The writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy for the correction of errors and does not lie to prevent an erroneous decision in' a ease which the court is authorized to adjudicate. Kelley, Judge, v. State, ex rel. Gellner, 94 Ohio St., 331, 114 N. E., 255; State, ex rel. Carmody, v. Justice, Judge, 114 Ohio St., 94, 150 N. E., 430; State, ex rel. Norris, v. Hodapp, Judge, 135 Ohio St., 26, 18 N. E. (2d), 984.

The extraordinary writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ which may not be invoked if the remedy of appeal is available. State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24.

For the foregoing reasons a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Wbygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,, Stewart, Turner and Tabt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.