Case Name: The State, ex rel. Moskowitz et al., d. b. a. Moskowitz Bros., a Partnership, Appellees, v. Dickerson et al., Industrial Commission of Ohio, et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1961-12-27
Citations: 172 Ohio St. 551
Docket Number: No. 37065
Parties: The State, ex rel. Moskowitz et al., d. b. a. Moskowitz Bros., a Partnership, Appellees, v. Dickerson et al., Industrial Commission of Ohio, et al., Appellants.
Judges: Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 172
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Moskowitz et al., d. b. a. Moskowitz Bros., a Partnership, Appellees, v. Dickerson et al., Industrial Commission of Ohio, et al., Appellants.
(No. 37065
Decided December 27, 1961.)
Mr. Howard Gould and Mr. David Reichert, for appellees.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, Mr. Alvin C. Vinopal and Mrs. Mary Spivey Durham, for appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It appears from the record that the degree of hazard of the occupation and the risks of the different classes were used in fixing the rates of premiums assessed against the relators, that it was done in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, and that the assessments against relator are not illegal and the Court of Appeals so found. Therefore, the relators, not having suffered any loss from the application of rule VII, have no interest as to the validity of rule VII.
Where a relator has no beneficial interest in the allowance of a writ, the writ should be denied. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 417, Section 135; State, ex rel. Keppler, v. Houston, Judge, 172 Ohio St., 485.
Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering a writ to issue requiring the Industrial Commission to revise rule VTI is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O'Neill, JJ., concur.