Case ID: ohio-st_174/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Massengale, Appellant, v. George, Judge, et al., Appellees.
    
    (No. 37922
    Decided May 29,1963.)
    
      
      Mr. Louis Strieker, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Raymond E. Shannon, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Marvin J. Barsman, for appellees.
    
      
       Pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 2731.04, Revised Code, this action should have been by the state on the relation of the party seeking the writ of mandamus. However, as Section 2505.05, Revised Code, requires that the style of the case shall be the same in the reviewing court as in the court of origin, the style of the instant case is so retained.
    
   Per Curiam.

A writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the relator establishes a clear legal right thereto. There is no bill of exceptions to show what, if any, evidence the relator presented to the Court of Appeals to establish his right to a writ.

The relator not having established a clear legal right to the relief sought, the judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taet, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.