Court Opinion

ID: 8353385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-18 00:02:18.749094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:45:52.602090
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs, not having availed themselves of the usual and adequate remedy of appeal, may not resort to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition as a substitute therefor. State, ex rel. Nicklaus, v. McClelland, Judge, 132 Ohio St., 447, 8 N. E. (2d), 565; Shafer v. Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, 137 Ohio St., 429, 30 N. E. (2d), 811; State, *181ex rel. Ellis, v. McCabe et al., Judges, 138 Ohio St., 417, 35 N. E. (2d), 571; State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St., 397, 86 N. E. (2d), 464; State, ex rel. Clary, v. Probate Court of Preble County, 151 Ohio St., 497, 86 N. E. (2d), 765; State, ex rel. Sparto, v. Juvenile Court of Darke County, 153 Ohio St., 64, 90 N. E. (2d), 598; State, ex rel. Hough, v. Municipal Court of Cleveland, 153 Ohio St., 287, 91 N. E. (2d), 506.
The demurrers to the petition are sustained and a writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ demed.

Weygandt, O. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Taft, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.