Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0335-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CUSHING, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 432
    STATE ex CIN. N. O. & T. P. RY. CO. v. ROETTINGER, Judge et
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    No. 2837.
    Decided March 8, 1926
    1017. REMEDIAL RIGHTS — Writ of prohibition will not be issued where adequate remedy exists at law, as an error proceeding.
    1237. VENUE — Sec. 11273 GC. is a venue statute, and not one limiting jurisdiction of Common Pleas.
    Attorneys — Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith, & Hoadly for State ex; Hightower, O’Brien & Porter for Roettinger et; all of Cincinnati.
   CUSHING, J.

The St. Louis, Troy and Eastern Railroad Co. brought an action in the Hamilton Common Pleas against the Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., claiming damages for delay in a shipment of coal.

The Pacific Ry. Co. answered and pleaded one of the conditions in the bill of lading as an excuse for the delay. A motion was also filed by said defendant to dismiss the action because it was not brought in the county in which the cause of action arose. Judge Roettinger overruled the motion and set the time for hearing the case.

The plaintiff-in-error brought the present action in the Court of Appeals against Judge Roettinger and the other judges of the Hamilton Common Pleas Court, seeking to prohibit them or any of them from hearing or trying the cause. The writ of prohibition was claimed by virtue of 11273 GC. as amended in 109 OL. 81. The Court of Appeals held:

1. Section 11273 GC. is not a statute limiting jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Pleas in trial of certain- causes of action; but is a venue statute.
2. In transitory actions, the venue may be laid in any county the plaintiff chooses. That is, he may bring suit wherever he may find the defendant, and lay his cause of action there even though the cause of action arose in a foreign jurisdiction.
3. A writ of prohibition should not issue unless it is shown' that the party does not have adequate remedy, either in law or in equity; and unless the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter.
4. A writ of prohibition will not be awarded to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment, as an adequate remedy is available' by proceedings in error. State ex. Cormody v. Justice, 4 Abs. 113.
5. The plaintiff-in-error has an adequate remedy at law, in an error proceeding.

Writ denied.