Opinion
No. 34942
Decided February 27, 1957.
Prohibition — Writ not available where other adequate remedy — Not substitute for appeal — Not available to determine constitutionality of statute, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
The appellants who live in the city of Columbus instituted in the Court of Appeals an action in prohibition against the Columbus Municipal Court and the city attorney. They allege in their petition that affidavits were filed against them in the Columbus Municipal Court charging them with violating a Columbus pedestrian-traffic regulation; that warrants for their arrest were issued in bad faith; that the traffic regulation which they were charged with violating is illegal and in violation of the state Uniform Traffic Act and the ordinances of the city of Columbus; that their cases are pending in the Columbus Municipal Court; that such court has no jurisdiction of the cases; that the Municipal Court Act, as amended, giving the Columbus Municipal Court county-wide jurisdiction, created an illegal and unconstitutional court; that the city attorney seeks to usurp the duties of prosecuting attorney; and that his acts in the prosecution of criminal cases are unlawful and illegal. The prayer is that the Municipal Court and the city attorney be prohibited from proceeding any further with appellants' cases or from entering final judgments therein.
Appellees demurred to the petition for the reason that the petition does not state facts which show a cause of action.
The Court of Appeals sustained the demurrers.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Emile Reiss, for appellants.
Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie, city attorney, Mr. J. Russell Leach and Mr. John C. Young, for appellees.
The writ of prohibition will be awarded only where there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and will not be substituted for an appeal. State, ex rel. Heine, v. Busher, Chief Justice, 164 Ohio St. 519, 132 N.E.2d 459.
Appellants have an adequate remedy by way of appeal.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HERBERT, JJ., concur.