STATE EX REL. v. JEFFERY, 158 Ohio St. 43 (1952)

106 N.E.2d 644

THE STATE, EX REL. DRISCOLL v. JEFFERY, CLERK OF COURT.

No. 32625Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 11, 1952.

Clerk of courts — Duties — Assignment of cases for trial — Appointment of assignment commissioner — Section 3007, General Code — Alternate methods provided — Clerk relieved of duties, when — Mandamus.

IN MANDAMUS.

Relator, an attorney at law and counsel in cases pending in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, instituted this action in mandamus in this court against the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Relator alleges that the respondent has failed and refused to prepare a trial docket and publish copies thereof in compliance with the provisions of Sections 2878, 11381 and 11389, General Code, and has refused to concede that he will do so for the next succeeding term of court, to the irreparable harm of relator in that he will be deprived of his right to a copy of the trial docket granted to him as an attorney and officer of the court and will be deprived of his right to have the cases on file in which he is counsel assigned for trial.

The prayer of the petition is for a writ commanding respondent to proceed to prepare a trial docket in compliance with Sections 2878 and 11381, General Code, in sufficient time to permit the assignment for trial of pending cases on file in respondent’s office and to print and publish copies of the trial docket in compliance with Section 11389, General Code.

The respondent, by his answer, alleges that the judges of the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County appointed assignment commissioners to attend to the assignment of all cases for trial and to discharge other

Page 44

duties required of them by the judges, as provided for in Section 3007, General Code, and that the assignment commissioners have been attending to the setting, assigning and publishing the dates on which cases will be called for trial before the court. The answer then describes in detail the procedure followed. The prayer of the answer is that the petition de dismissed.

Respondent has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Mr. William D. Driscoll, for relator.

Mr. Joel S. Rhinefort, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Harry Friberg, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

As shown by the pleadings, the General Assembly has provided two alternate methods of procedure in the assignment of cases for trial. The judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County have chosen the method authorized by Section 3007, General Code, thus vesting in an assignment commissioner the duties of assigning all cases for trial and relieving the clerk of court of those duties. This procedure is now being followed.

There being no duty enjoined by law upon the respondent to assign cases for trial under the method now being employed, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

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

Page 45