Opinion
No. 34809
Decided October 17, 1956.
Courthouses — Court located therein — Paramount right to space as against others — Necessity for space a question of fact — Appeal — Judgment not disturbed by reviewing court, when — No bill of exceptions.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Tuscarawas County.
This action in mandamus was instituted in the Court of Appeals by relator as probate judge seeking a writ ordering the Board of County Commissioners to provide certain space for a courtroom and jury room for the Probate Court, adjacent to such court's present quarters, which space is now being used by the county recorder. The Court of Appeals ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue against respondent members of the board for the performance of the acts sought.
On appeal, this court held that the Court of Appeals was in error in rejecting any testimony with reference to the necessity for the additional space and facilities demanded, reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the Court of Appeals for the taking of testimony as to the reasonable necessity for the additional space and facilities demanded by the relator. See State, ex rel. Finley, Judge, v. Pfeiffer et al., Board of County Commrs., 163 Ohio St. 149, 126 N.E.2d 57.
Upon remand, the Court of Appeals heard evidence, determined that there was sufficient credible evidence presented to show that the Probate Court needs additional space adjacent to its present quarters for the proper and efficient handling of the court's business, and granted the writ as prayed for.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. John H. Lamneck and Mr. A.L. Limbach, for appellee.
Mr. Russell J. Burt, for appellants.
There being no bill of exceptions, this court cannot say that there was not substantial evidence warranting the Court of Appeals in the conclusions reached by it. On appeal on questions of law all reasonable presumptions consistent with the record will be indulged in favor of the validity of the judgment under review and of the regularity and legality of the proceedings below.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.