Case Name: The State, ex rel. Kay, Appellant, v. Fuerst, Clerk of Court, et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1951-11-07
Citations: 156 Ohio St. 188
Docket Number: No. 32581
Parties: The State, ex rel. Kay, Appellant, v. Fuerst, Clerk of Court, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 156
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Kay, Appellant, v. Fuerst, Clerk of Court, et al., Appellees.
(No. 32581
Decided November 7, 1951.)
Mr. Richard B. Kay, in propria persona.
Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Saul S. Danaceau, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of law generally, but will be confined to commanding the performance of specific acts specially enjoined by law to be performed. Cullen, Vice Mayor, v. State, ex rel. City of Toledo, 105 Ohio St., 545, 138 N. E., 58; State, ex rel. Stanley, v. Cook, Supt. of Banks, 146 Ohio St., 348, 66 N. E. (2d), 207; State, ex rel. Foster, v. Miller et al., Tax Comm., 136 Ohio St., 295, 25 N. E. (2d), 686.
Judgment affirmed.
Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.