Opinion
No. 30364
Decided November 21, 1945.
Prohibition — Writ not to issue denying court right to determine jurisdiction — General jurisdiction conferred by statute on Court of Common Pleas — Section 11215, General Code — Action for money judgment on agreement to employ — Writ not substitute for appeal — Jurisdiction of War Labor Board of United States.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of Franklin county.
This cause is in this court on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals which sustained a demurrer of respondents and dismissed relator's petition for a writ of prohibition.
The petition in prohibition alleges that an action against the relator was commenced by Philip A. Thal in the Court of Common Pleas and in his second cause of action of his amended petition Thal claimed that relator, Greenstein, in March 1942, orally agreed to continue to employ Thal at a weekly salary, with vacation for one week with pay, plus an additional stipulated sum or more to be paid at the end of the year 1942 if Greenstein's business justified more. The petition in prohibition alleges also that sole jurisdiction to decide the claim of Thal in his second cause of action was vested in the War Labor Board of the United States under an act of Congress entitled "An Act to Amend the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 * * *," duly approved by the President on October 2, 1942, and the President's Executive Order No. 9250 issued thereunder. The petition alleges further that a general demurrer was overruled by the Court of Common Pleas which asserted "it had jurisdiction to determine the issues in said alleged second cause of action including the existence of said alleged oral agreement of employment and the interpretation thereof if any such agreement were found to exist." The petition prays for a writ prohibiting the judges of the Court of Common Pleas from assuming jurisdiction over the second cause of action of the amended petition, from holding any hearing or trial on the issues presented thereby and from making any order or entering any judgment thereon against relator.
Mr. Hugh M. Bennett, for appellant.
Messrs. Stump, Wardlaw, King Mitchell, for appellees.
The petition in prohibition, which was filed in the Court of Appeals, has attached thereto and made a part thereof a copy of the amended petition filed by Thal in the Court of Common Pleas. It is apparent from both petitions that Thal was seeking a money judgment on an agreement or a contract of employment.
Section 11215, General Code, confers on the Court of Common Pleas original jurisdiction in all civil cases where the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdiction of justices of the peace.
General jurisdiction of the subject matter having been conferred by statute upon the Court of Common Pleas, a writ of prohibition should not issue denying that court the right to determine whether such jurisdiction attaches under the facts of a particular case. Wisner v. Probate Court, 145 Ohio St. 419, 61 N.E.2d 889.
The writ of prohibition may not be invoked as a substitute for appeal. 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24; State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St. 451, 55 N.E.2d 735.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, BELL, WILLIAMS, TURNER, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.