Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Ohio St. (N.S.) 371

Harding v. Eichinger

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1898

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1898-01-18

The defendant in error commenced his action against the plaintiff in error, by filing in the court of common pleas of Richland county, a petition of which the following is a copy, viz.: aThe plaintiff says: That on the first Monday of April, 1895, he was, and still continues to be, an elector and resident of the seventh ward of the city of Mansfield, Richland county, Ohio, and on that day at said city election, he was duly elected by the voters of said ward, one of its…

Decided 1898-01-18

By the Court:

¶1The plaintiff below mistook his remedy. The petition' shows that Harding, and not Eichinger, was in possession of the office when the action was *374commenced. . Injunction may be resorted to by the incumbent of a public office to protect his possession against interference by an adverse claimant until the latter establishes his title, but is not the appropriate remedy to try the title. Reemelin v. Mosby, 47 Ohio St., 570.

¶2Quo wa/rranto, is the proper form of remedy.

¶3Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, and petition dismissed-.

¶4Reversed.

/57/ohiost(ns)/371 · .json · Public domain