State Ex Rel. Meyer v. Conn

By the Court. The foregoing summary of facts is sufficient to demonstrate that relator seeks a writ of prohibition either to prevent an erroneous decision or as a substitute for an appeal. The writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy for the correction of errors and does not lie to prevent an erroneous decision in' a ease which the court is authorized to adjudicate. Kelley, Judge, v. State, ex rel. Gellner, 94 Ohio St., 331, 114 N. E., 255; State, ex rel. Carmody, v. Justice, Judge, 114 Ohio St., 94, 150 N. E., 430; State, ex rel. Norris, v. Hodapp, Judge, 135 Ohio St., 26, 18 N. E. (2d), 984. The extraordinary writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ which may not be invoked if the remedy of appeal is available. State, ex rel. Levy, v. Savord, 143 Ohio St., 451, 55 N. E. (2d), 735; 32 Ohio Jurisprudence, 586, Section 24. For the foregoing reasons a writ of prohibition is denied. Writ denied. Wbygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,, Stewart, Turner and Tabt, JJ., concur.