Case Name: State, ex rel. Rhoad et al., v. Groff et al.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1959-03-06
Citations: 109 Ohio App. 221
Docket Number: No. 312
Parties: State, ex rel. Rhoad et al., v. Groff et al.
Judges: Wiseman, P. J., Craweord and Kerns, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 221–228

Head Matter:
State, ex rel. Rhoad et al., v. Groff et al.
(No. 312
Decided March 6, 1959.)
Messrs. Griffith £ Griffith and Messrs. Brownfield £ Malone, for relators.
Messrs. Butler, Addison, Smith £ Carmack and Miss Grace Fern Beck, for respondents.
Appeal dismissed, moot question, 170 Ohio St., 72.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This cause is submitted on motions for judgment on the pleadings.
This is an action in mandamus brought by Jean C. Rhoad and others, residents and taxpayers of Fayette County, against the members of the Board of Education of the Miami Trace Local School District, Fayette County, Ohio, in which it is alleged that relators have reason to believe that the procedure adopted by the board of education relative to the issuance of bonds for the building of a high school was improper, irregular and not in good faith, and that by reason thereof relators wish to investigate the proceedings had by the respondents, to determine whether an action will lie to enjoin the issuance of such bonds. It is alleged further that permission to inspect the minutes and records of the board of education was refused by the clerk of that board. The relators pray "that a writ of mandamus issue directing the respondents to permit the relators, their attorneys or agents to examine and make copies of all minutes and other official records in the possession or control of the respondents, and that until the relators have had the opportunity to make such inspection, the respondents be restrained from accepting a bid for said bonds and from awarding or issuing the same."
The respondents filed an answer to the petition admitting that in the early part of this controversy permission to inspect the minutes and records of the board of education had been refused. However, it is further alleged that after being advised by counsel that the relators had the right to examine the books and records of the board, the respondents informed the relators that at any time they or their agents desired to examine the records of the board such records would be available to them. The respondents alleged further that "since the 25th day of June, 1958, the books and records of said Miami Trace Local School District have been available to the relators for examination and to make copies, at all times during all reasonable business hours, but that the fact is, neither the relators nor their agents or attorneys, despite the correspondence heretofore set forth, have made any attempt whatsoever to examine said records. Further answering, the respondents say that they are, have been and will be ready, able and willing to permit a full and complete examination of the records, and permit the taking of copies of the same by the relators, at any reasonable time, and that they tender herewith, as part of their answer, all of the books and records of Miami Trace Local School District, Fayette County, Ohio, for the examination of said relators, as herein set forth. ' '
(Decided May 11, 1959.)
The relators have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The pleadings show that the relators had a legal right to examine the public records of the respondents. This right was refused in the first instance, but later permission was granted the relators to examine all records of the board. In their answer the respondents offer to make available to the relators for examination all such records and tender such records for examination by relators.
The court cannot determine from the pleadings whether such examination has been made, or whether, if an examination has been made, all records sought to be examined have been made available. However, at this juncture it appears from respondents ' answer that they have done and offered to do everything within their power which the law requires them to do. In the face of this allegation which discloses the readiness of the respondents to grant full authority to the relators to examine and inspect such records as may be pertinent to the issue we cannot sustain relators' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
At the time this matter was presented in open court counsel for respondents orally filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. By the pleadings it does not appear that the examination of the records has been an accomplished fact. True, the respondents are ready and willing to open their records for examination. Until it appears that an examination has been made this court would not sustain a motion for judgment in favor of respondents.
The motion of relators and the motion of respondents for judgment on the pleadings are, therefore, overruled.
Motions for judgment overruled.
Wiseman, P. J., Craweord and Kerns, JJ., concur.