State ex rel. Collins v. Lake Superior Court
State of Indiana on Relation of Collins v. Lake Superior Court, Room 4, Roszkowski, as Judge, Etc.
Opinion
Flanagan, C. J.
This is a petition for a writ of mandate and prohibition. The original action in the trial court was on account and for appointment of receiver. Relator duly filed a plea in abatement, contending that service on him was obtained by leaving a copy of the summons at his place of business instead of his residence. Evidence was heard and the finding was against relator on his plea in abatement.
Relator now says here that the ruling of the trial court was wrong and we should prohibit the trial court from proceeding further.
Writs of prohibition and mandamus are extraordinary remedies, and not intended to take the place of appeals, and do not issue where there is another adequate remedy. Here relator has his remedy of appeal which is full and adequate.
*537 The temporary writ of prohibition is hereby vacated and annulled.
Bobbitt, Draper, Emmert, and Gilkison, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 121 N. E. 2d 731 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- State ex rel. Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Delaware Circuit Court
- State ex rel. Gibson General Hospital v. Warrick Circuit Court
- State ex rel. Crumpacker v. LaPorte Circuit Court
- State ex rel. Janesville Auto Transport Co. v. Superior Court of Porter County
- State ex rel. Lacy v. Probate Ct., Marion Co.
- STATE ex rel. GIBSON GEN. HOS. v. Warrick Cir. Ct.
Most recent
- State ex rel. Janesville Auto Transport Co. v. Superior Court of Porter County
- State ex rel. Crumpacker v. LaPorte Circuit Court
- STATE ex rel. GIBSON GEN. HOS. v. Warrick Cir. Ct.
- State ex rel. Gibson General Hospital v. Warrick Circuit Court
- State ex rel. Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Delaware Circuit Court
- State ex rel. Lacy v. Probate Ct., Marion Co.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.