185 N.E. 420 | Ohio | 1933
The single question here presented is whether the allegations of plaintiff's petition state properly pleaded facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for invoking the writ of prohibition.
It is necessary to keep in mind the exact nature of this remedy. Although it is a common-law writ of high antiquity prohibition came into Ohio jurisprudence through the constitutional amendments of 1912. As frequently stated by the text-writers its principal purpose is to prevent an inferior court or other tribunal from assuming a jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested. On page 5 of 22 Ruling Case Law appears the following general statement: "Like all other prerogative writs, prohibition is to be used with great caution and forbearance, for the furtherance of justice and to secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings, and should be used only in cases of extreme necessity." In the case ofState, ex rel. Nolan, v. Clen-Dening,
When the foregoing restated principles are applied to the allegations in the instant case this court is of the opinion that the petition was properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Every question with reference to the alleged irregularities can be seasonably and efficiently raised in error proceedings. Clearly, if any court has the power to proceed under these indictments it is the Court of Common Pleas of Williams county alone. The single fact that the action of that court might involve prejudicial irregularities is not a sufficient basis for abandoning the usual proceedings in error and resorting to the extraordinary prerogative writ of prohibition.
It is contended by plaintiff in error that the views of this court as enunciated in the case of State, ex rel. Thomas, Pros.Atty., v. Gessner,
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DAY, ALLEN, STEPHENSON, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.
*342KINKADE, J., not participating.