Wilson v. Behr
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By MATTHEWS, J.
After the ease was argued in this court the plaintiffs in error (defendants belowl raised the question of whether the plaintiff should not have proceeded by mandamus instead of by ordinary action to recover money. Assuming that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was available, we are of the opinion that the ordinary remedy was also. No prejudice could result to the defendants by resorting to it, and, clearly, if the objection were substantial, it would have long since been w'aived. We, therefore, proceed to the question raised by the pleadings and the evidence.
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Opitz v. KarelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Harden v. HardenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kubby v. HammondArizona Supreme Court · 1948
- Butcher v. PollardOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
- Mathews, Admx. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Shapira v. Union National BankMahoning County Court of Common Pleas · 1974