Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Van Schaick v. Bowen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1936No. 25213PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Day, J,

Is relator entitled to a writ of mandamus ? Respondent contends that relator is not entitled to the writ prayed for, first, because relator has another adequate remedy, and second, because relator is not entitled to the return of the deposit. We shall consider the second contention first.

On March 22, 1923, the General Assembly of Ohio enacted Section 9510-7, General Code, which provides that:

“An insurance company which is required by the provisions of paragraph two of section 9510, General Code, to deposit fifty thousand dollars of bonds with the superintendent of insurance may, in…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Matter of People (Southern Surety Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. In re PeopleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  3. Matter of People (Southern Surety Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1939
  4. State ex rel. Safeguard Ins. v. VorysOhio Supreme Court · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API