Case ID: ohio-law-abs_14/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex FRASCH et v MILLER
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
    No 2268.
    Decided Dec 22, 1932
    Alex S. Dombey and S. Mavis for plaintiffs.
    John L. Davies, City Attorney, Columbus, and Ray O’Donnell, Columbus, for defendant.
   BY THE COURT

This case was filed with the understanding on behalf of the court that there was no forfeiture clause in a contract of lease. It now appears that there is sübh a clause. It is true that counsel for plaintiff urges the allowance of the writ upon other grounds, to-wit upon the non-joinder of other necessary parties. We think, however, when the jurisdiction of the trial court is admitted that there is nothing further for a court to do in relation to the writ of prohibition. The writ is, therefore, refused.

ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUÑKLE, JJ, concur.