Opinion Per Curiam.

tional question substantially affecting the rights of the parties; 2d. The court of appeals was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Petition dismissed.

NICHOLS, C. J., WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON and DONAHUE, JJ., concur.

TAYLOR V. THE CITY OF TOLEDO.

Reversals-Facts insufficient to constitute cause of action Court of appeals-Consideration of all assignments of error.

(No. 15519-Decided July 3, 1917.)

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.

Mr. Ben W. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harry Commager, city solicitor, and Mr. Charles T. Lawton, assistant city solicitor, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error of that court in reversing the judgment of the common pleas court, for the reason that "The petition of the said Everett E. Taylor in the court of common pleas stated no cause of action, and that the opening statement of counsel to the jury on the trial of said cause was in accordance with the averments of

Opinion Per Curiam.

said petition." And it appearing to the court that the court of appeals did not consider the further question presented by the petition of the plaintiff in error in said cause, this cause is remanded to the court of appeals of Lucas county, with directions to consider all other assignments of error stated in the petition in error in that court.

Judgment reversed.

WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, MATTHIAS and JOHN

SON, JJ., concur.

THE STATE, EX REL. THE HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO., v. DOUDS Et al.

Writ of prohibition — Purpose and scope.

(No. 15628 Decided July 3, 1917.)

IN PROHIBITION.

Messrs. Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert and Messrs. Arnold & Game, for relator.

Mr. Smith W. Bennett, for respondents.

This case came on to be heard on the petition of the relator, the answer of the defendants, and the demurrer of the relator to such answer, and was argued by counsel. The court finds that said demurrer searches the record and raises the question of the sufficiency of the facts and allegations set

Opinion Per Curiam.

forth in the said petition and the right of the relator upon such facts and allegations to have and receive the relief therein prayed for, and the court now therefore coming to consider said demurrer as a demurrer to the petition finds that the same is well taken upon the cases of State, ex rel. Nolan, v. ClenDening et al., 93 Ohio St., 264; State, ex rel. Garrison, v. Brough et al., 94 Ohio St., 115; State, ex rel. Barbee, Exr., v. Allen, Probate Judge, ante, 10, and State, ex rel. Faber, v. Jones et al., Judges, 95 Ohio St., 357, in that said facts and allegations of such petition are insufficient, and do not entitle the relator to the relief prayed for, and does therefore sustain such demurrer as a demurrer to said petition.

The relator not desiring to plead further herein it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer as a demurrer to the petition be and the same is hereby sustained, that the alternative writ heretofore allowed herein be quashed, that the writ of prohibition and relief prayed for by the relator in said petition be and the same is hereby refused and denied, and that said petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Writ denied.

WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON and DONAHUE, JJ., concur.

Opinion Per Curiam.

SLUSSER V. BAKER.

Election contest-Probate judge-Corrupt practices act - Procedure.

(No. 15638- Decided July 3, 1917.)

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Summit county.

Messrs. Payer, Winch. Rogers & Minshall, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Decker & Platt, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed, for the reason that it appears from the record that the contestor was not entitled to judgment against the contestee in this proceeding. Even if it be proven that there was a violation of the section of the statute under which this proceeding is brought it would not constitute a ground for removal. And coming now to render the judgment that the court of appeals should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Judgment of the court of appeals reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.

NICHOLS, C. J., NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON and DONAHUE, JJ., concur.

WANAMAKER, J., not participating.

Opinion Per Curiam.

THE STATE, EX REL. McGHEE, ATTY. GEN., v. WALTERS ET AL.

Supreme court — Jurisdiction - Quo warranto-Injunction.

(No. 15649-Decided July 3, 1917.)

IN QUO WARRANTO.

Mr. Joseph McGhee, attorney general; Mr. C. A. Radcliffe and Mr. Frank Davis, Jr., for relator. Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Mr. Robert F. Denison, for respondents.

This day this cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the relator, the joint answer of Charles W. Walters and The Cleveland Stone Company, the reply of relator thereto, and the evidence, and was argued by counsel. And the court being fully advised in the premises find that a railway corporation has been organized under the laws of Ohio to take over and operate as a common carrier that portion of the tracks formerly owned by The Marietta, Columbus & Cleveland Railroad Company lying between Vincent, Ohio, and Moore's Junction, Ohio, in accordance with the prayer and demand of relator's petition, and that for that reason all questions touching the right or authority of said defendants or either of them to operate that portion of said railroad as an industrial branch is eliminated from the consideration of this court in this case.