STATE, THE MAYSVILLE BRIDGE CO. v. QUINLAN, 124 Ohio St. 658 (1931)

181 N.E. 880

THE STATE, EX REL. THE MAYSVILLE BRIDGE CO. v. QUINLAN, PROBATE JUDGE.

No. 23128Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided October 7, 1931.

Writ of prohibition — Moot question.

IN PROHIBITION.

Mr. Francis T. Bartlett, Mr. George C. Heath and Messrs. Hunt, Bennett Utter, for relator.

Mr. John H. Houston, prosecuting attorney, for respondent.

The court find that there is no warrant for the issuance of a writ of prohibition sought by the plaintiff, for the reason that the action, order and judgment which the plaintiff seeks to have restrained and prohibited have been fully consummated. A writ of prohibition may be awarded only to prevent the unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction, and does not lie to prevent the enforcement of a claimed erroneous judgment previously rendered; it may be invoked only to prevent proceeding in a matter in which there is an absence of jurisdiction and not to review the regularity of an act already performed. It cannot be substituted for a proceeding in error.

Writ denied.

MARSHALL, C.J., JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.

Page 659