Case ID: ohio-st_151/html/0008-01.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. Meyer, v. Conn et al., Judges.
    (No. 31485
    Decided February 9, 1949.)
    
      
      Mr. John F. McCrystal and Mr. James L. McCrystal,. for relator.
    
      Mr. George W. Slaughter, prosecuting attorney,, for respondents.'
   By the Court.

The foregoing summary of facts is sufficient to demonstrate that relator seeks a writ of prohibition either to prevent an erroneous decision or as a substitute for an appeal.

The writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy for the correction of errors and does not lie to prevent an erroneous decision in' a ease which the court is authorized to adjudicate. Kelley, Judge, v. State, ex rel. Gellner, 94 Ohio St., 331, 114 N. E., 255; State, ex rel. Carmody, v. Justice, Judge, 114 Ohio St., 94, 150 N. E., 430; State, ex rel. Norris, v. Hodapp, Judge, 135 Ohio St., 26, 18 N. E. (2d), 984.

The extraordinary writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ which may not be invoked if the remedy of appeal is available. State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24.

For the foregoing reasons a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Wbygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,, Stewart, Turner and Tabt, JJ., concur.