From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The State, Sparto. v. Court

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1950
153 Ohio St. 64 (Ohio 1950)

Summary

recognizing that prohibition "will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Harper v. Moore

Opinion

No. 31898

Decided February 15, 1950.

Prohibition — Writ not granted where lower court may determine its jurisdiction — Writ not issued to prevent erroneous judgment, as substitute for appeal or to correct mistakes — Granting new trial in proceeding involving custody of child.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Darke county.

The relators in the Court of Appeals sought a writ prohibiting the Juvenile Court and its judge from proceeding in a case involving the custody of a child, in which case the court had rendered an opinion granting a new trial.

The Court of Appeals sustained a demurrer and dismissed the petition, on the grounds that it shows the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction, the relators sought to substitute a writ of prohibition for appeal and they have an adequate ordinary legal remedy.

Relators perfected an appeal as of right to this court.

Messrs. Ginocchio Ginocchio, for appellants.

Mr. Cecil E. Edwards and Mr. Paul W. Younker, for appellees.


The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

A writ of prohibition will not be granted to prevent proceedings in a lower court concerning matters as to which such court has power to determine its own jurisdiction. Wisner v. Probate Court of Columbiana County, 145 Ohio St. 419, 61 N.E.2d 889; State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St. 451, 55 N.E.2d 735; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 581, Section 20.

The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Norris, v. Hodapp, Judge, 135 Ohio St. 26, 18 N.E.2d 984; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 572, Section 9; State, ex rel. Garrison, v. Brough, 94 Ohio St. 115, 113 N.E. 683; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24. See, also, State, ex rel. Niederlehner, v. Mack, Judge, 125 Ohio St. 559, 182 N.E. 498.

Judgment affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TURNER and TAFT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

The State, Sparto. v. Court

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1950
153 Ohio St. 64 (Ohio 1950)

recognizing that prohibition "will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Harper v. Moore
Case details for

The State, Sparto. v. Court

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. SPARTO ET AL., APPELLANTS v. JUVENILE COURT OF DARKE…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 15, 1950

Citations

153 Ohio St. 64 (Ohio 1950)
90 N.E.2d 598

Citing Cases

Watson v. Suster

This court will not issue a writ of prohibition to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of…

V.R.T. v. Celebrezze

"The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct…