From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, the Maysville Bridge Co. v. Quinlan

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 7, 1931
181 N.E. 880 (Ohio 1931)

Opinion

No. 23128

Decided October 7, 1931.

Writ of prohibition — Moot question.

IN PROHIBITION.

Mr. Francis T. Bartlett, Mr. George C. Heath and Messrs. Hunt, Bennett Utter, for relator.

Mr. John H. Houston, prosecuting attorney, for respondent.


The court find that there is no warrant for the issuance of a writ of prohibition sought by the plaintiff, for the reason that the action, order and judgment which the plaintiff seeks to have restrained and prohibited have been fully consummated. A writ of prohibition may be awarded only to prevent the unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction, and does not lie to prevent the enforcement of a claimed erroneous judgment previously rendered; it may be invoked only to prevent proceeding in a matter in which there is an absence of jurisdiction and not to review the regularity of an act already performed. It cannot be substituted for a proceeding in error.

Writ denied.

MARSHALL, C.J., JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, the Maysville Bridge Co. v. Quinlan

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 7, 1931
181 N.E. 880 (Ohio 1931)
Case details for

State, the Maysville Bridge Co. v. Quinlan

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. THE MAYSVILLE BRIDGE CO. v. QUINLAN, PROBATE JUDGE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 7, 1931

Citations

181 N.E. 880 (Ohio 1931)
181 N.E. 880

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel. v. Schoonmaker

BY THE COURT. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of Miner v. Witt, City Clerk, 82…

State, ex Rel. v. Cramer

Ordinarily the appropriate remedy against in order of sale or execution improperly issued is a motion to…