Opinion
No. 35713
Decided December 10, 1958.
Mandamus — To compel court to render judgment in particular way — Writ not available to control judicial discretion.
IN MANDAMUS.
ON DEMURRER to petition.
This action in mandamus originated in this court. The petition recites:
"Your relator says that on the 16th day of October, 1957, it filed 51 cases in the Municipal Court of the city of Canton, Ohio. These cases were * * * all actions for judgment on cognovit notes brought by the relator against various defendants.
"On the 16th day of October, 1957, each defendant appeared in open court by his attorney and confessed judgment.
"Thereafter, the respondent failed and refused to enter judgment accordingly.
"The relator has no adequate remedy at law.
"Wherefore, the relator prays that a writ of mandamus issue against the respondent requiring him to enter judgment accordingly to the confession of judgment in each of the 51 cases and that relator recover his costs herein expended."
Respondent has demurred to the petition "for the reason that the same does not state a cause of action."
The case has been submitted on the petition and the demurrer.
Mr. James Maxwell, Jr., for relator.
Mr. Leroy J. Contie, Jr., city solicitor, and Mr. Robert E. Levitt, for respondent.
The writ of mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion or to direct in what particular way the court shall proceed or shall decide a particular matter.
The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ is denied on authority of State, ex rel. De Ville Photography, Inc., v. McCarroll, Judge, 167 Ohio St. 210, 147 N.E.2d 254.
Writ denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MATTHIAS, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.