Case Name: The State, ex rel. Coury, v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1961-06-07
Citations: 172 Ohio St. 309
Docket Number: No. 36904
Parties: The State, ex rel. Coury, v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
Judges: Wetgandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radoliee and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 172
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Coury, v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
(No. 36904
Decided June 7, 1961.)
Messrs. Herbert, Tuttle, Applegate S Britt, for relator.
Mr. Ashley M. Van Dúser, Mr. Edwin N. Strand, Mr. Michael L. Shatten and Messrs. Porter, Stanley, Treffinger & Platt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The relatrix is afforded an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law under Section 4905.26, Revised Code, by filing a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission and an appeal from an adverse order of the commission.
A writ of mandamus may be denied where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See Section 2731.05, Revised Code.
Writ denied.
Wetgandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Radoliee and O'Neill, JJ., concur.
Radoliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.