Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

SCOTT v. COURT, 156 Ohio St. 179 (1951)

101 N.E.2d 387

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1951-10-31
Topic
general

SCOTT v. COURT, 156 Ohio St. 179 (1951) 101 N.E.2d 387 SCOTT, ADMR., ET AL. v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CLEVELAND ET AL. No. 32717Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided October 31, 1951.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SCOTT v. COURT, 156 Ohio St. 179 (1951). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SCOTT v. COURT,156 Ohio St. 179(1951)
101 N.E.2d 387
SCOTT, ADMR., ET AL. v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CLEVELAND ET AL.
No. 32717
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided October 31, 1951.
Prohibition — Writ not available as substitute for appeal.
IN PROHIBITION.

The plaintiffs, by this action in prohibition originating in this court, seek to prevent the defendant Municipal Court of Cleveland from enforcing its order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting their respective claims in an action pending in the Common Pleas Court of Guernsey County and involving the same subject matter as that involved in an action pending in the defendantPage 180court, in which latter action the injunction was issued.

The petition alleges in substance that plaintiff Scott filed a petition in the Common Pleas Court of Guernsey County and at the time there was pending in the Municipal Court of Cleveland an action by one Diehm, a defendant herein; that both suits are against an insurance company to collect the proceeds of the same life insurance policy; that after the petition in the Guernsey county case was filed, plaintiff Scott was made a party to the action in the Cleveland Municipal Court; and "that the defendant, Municipal Court of Cleveland, was wholly without jurisdiction and authority to issue said injunction or to determine said case by reason of the fact that the action pending in the Common Pleas Court of Guernsey County, Ohio, was prior to the action in the Municipal Court of Cleveland in that the action in the Common Pleas Court in Guernsey county contained additional parties therein to that in the Municipal Court of Cleveland."

Defendants filed separate demurrers to the petition, based on the ground that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Messrs. Scott Scott, for plaintiffs.Messrs. Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Mr. Edwin H. Chaney, Messrs.Klein, Diehm FarberandMessrs. Deselm Moore, Mr. Joseph H.Crowley, law director, andMr. James M. McSweeney, for defendants.
Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs, not having availed themselves of the usual and adequate remedy of appeal, may not resort to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition as a substitute therefor.State, ex rel.Nicklaus, v.McClelland, Judge,132 Ohio St. 447,8 N.E.2d 565;Shaferv.Common Pleas Court of Franklin County,137 Ohio St. 429,30 N.E.2d 811;State,Page 181ex rel. Ellis, v.McCabe et al., Judges,138 Ohio St. 417,35 N.E.2d 571;State, ex rel. Levy, v.Savord,143 Ohio St. 451,55 N.E.2d 735;State, ex rel. Miller, v.Court of CommonPleas of Lake County,151 Ohio St. 397,86 N.E.2d 464;State, ex rel. Clary, v.Probate Court of Preble County,151 Ohio St. 497,86 N.E.2d 765;State, ex rel. Sparto, v.JuvenileCourt of Darke County,153 Ohio St. 64,90 N.E.2d 598;State, ex rel. Hough, v.Municipal Court of Cleveland,153 Ohio St. 287,91 N.E.2d 506.

The demurrers to the petition are sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.Writ denied.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.