205 N.E.2d 920
No. 38866Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided March 24, 1965.
Prohibition — Writ not available to prevent anticipated erroneous judgment — Not available as substitute for appeal.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County.
One Leonello commenced an action in the Common Pleas Court against Zettelmeyer, plaintiff in the instant action, seeking a summary judgment in amercement for money paid to Zettelmeyer. The trial judge prepared an opinion stating that defendant should be amerced and concluding: “Prevailing counsel will therefore draw a journal entry for the plaintiff in accordance with this opinion and submit it to opposing counsel and the court for approval * * *.” The opinion was entered on the journal, but it carries no notation that it is an entry for the journal, nor is there any direction by the court that it should be so entered.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appeal was dismissed for want of a final appealable order.
Thereafter the instant action in prohibition was commenced
Page 186
in the Court of Appeals by Zettelmeyer, seeking a writ restraining the Court of Common Pleas from approving an entry of judgment against Zettelmeyer in the amercement proceeding. A demurrer to the petition was sustained.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. T.R. Zettelmeyer, for appellant.
Messrs. Donaldson Colgrove, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
A writ of prohibition is not available to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment or to prevent the journalization of an order in conformity with an erroneous opinion. The appellant has an adequate remedy by way of appeal. State, ex rel. Winnefeld, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 159 Ohio St. 225.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., SMITH, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, HERBERT and SCHNEIDER, JJ., concur.
BROWN, J., not participating.
SMITH, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for ZIMMERMAN, J.
Page 187