Case Name: STATE ex FRASCH et v. MILLER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-12-22
Citations: 14 Ohio Law Abs. 223
Docket Number: No 2268
Parties: STATE ex FRASCH et v MILLER
Judges: ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUÑKLE, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 14
Pages: 223–223

Head Matter:
STATE ex FRASCH et v MILLER
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
No 2268.
Decided Dec 22, 1932
Alex S. Dombey and S. Mavis for plaintiffs.
John L. Davies, City Attorney, Columbus, and Ray O’Donnell, Columbus, for defendant.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT
This case was filed with the understanding on behalf of the court that there was no forfeiture clause in a contract of lease. It now appears that there is sübh a clause. It is true that counsel for plaintiff urges the allowance of the writ upon other grounds, to-wit upon the non-joinder of other necessary parties. We think, however, when the jurisdiction of the trial court is admitted that there is nothing further for a court to do in relation to the writ of prohibition. The writ is, therefore, refused.
ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUÑKLE, JJ, concur.