Case ID: ohio-st_140/html/0023-01.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

The State, ex rel. Rice, v. Matthews et al., Judges.
    (No. 29103
    Decided May 27, 1942.)
    
      
      Mr. Edw. Everett Rice, for relatrix.
    
      Messrs. Baden & Fiehrer and Mr. Jack Bosch, for respondents.
   By the Court.

Relatrix relies upon Section 6, Article IY of the Constitution, and contends it was the mandatory duty of the respondents “by virtue of Sections 12223-21 and 12223-30, G-eneral Code, and said constitutional provision, to retry the case, and to prepare, render and cause to be entered, a decision therein by opinion and entry, because the same was appealed to it for a trial de novo.”

The extraordinary writ of mandamus may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. 25 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1013, Section 34; State, ex rel. Barner, v. Marsh, Clerk, 120 Ohio St., 222, 165 N. E., 843.

The demurrer to the amended petition is sustained and a writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.