Case Name: Massengale, Appellant, v. George, Judge, et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1963-05-29
Citations: 174 Ohio St. 558
Docket Number: No. 37922
Parties: Massengale, Appellant, v. George, Judge, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Taet, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 174
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Massengale, Appellant, v. George, Judge, et al., Appellees.
(No. 37922
Decided May 29,1963.)
Mr. Louis Strieker, for appellant.
Mr. Raymond E. Shannon, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Marvin J. Barsman, for appellees.
Pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 2731.04, Revised Code, this action should have been by the state on the relation of the party seeking the writ of mandamus. However, as Section 2505.05, Revised Code, requires that the style of the case shall be the same in the reviewing court as in the court of origin, the style of the instant case is so retained.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A writ of mandamus will not be granted unless the relator establishes a clear legal right thereto. There is no bill of exceptions to show what, if any, evidence the relator presented to the Court of Appeals to establish his right to a writ.
The relator not having established a clear legal right to the relief sought, the judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Taet, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 'Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.