Opinion
No. 38328
Decided April 15, 1964
Prohibition — Questioning validity of judgment of trial court — Writ denied, when — Remedy available in ordinary course of law — Appeal.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Coshocton County.
By this action in prohibition, instituted in the Court of Appeals, relator seeks to prohibit the respondent Court of Common Pleas (and the judge thereof) from "recognizing, validating or enforcing" certain judgments rendered by the respondent in separate maintenance proceedings. The respondent demurred generally to the petition for the reason that it does not state a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. R.A. Mowbray, for appellant.
Messrs. Pomerene, Burns, Milligan Frase, for appellees.
The relator contends that the respondent "had no authority or jurisdiction to enter judgment for `separate maintenance' or alimony alone without a hearing in open court and upon testimony of plaintiff or admissions of the defendant."
It appears from the record that the respondent had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and there is no allegation in the petition to the contrary. Relator is afforded an adequate remedy by way of appeal to review the errors of which he complains. Prohibition may not be employed as a substitute for appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, JONES, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
JONES, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of MATTHIAS, J.