DocketNumber: No. 6175
Citation Numbers: 163 N.E.2d 391, 110 Ohio App. 286, 82 Ohio Law. Abs. 117
Judges: DUFFY, J.
Filed Date: 9/15/1959
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This is an action brought in this court, in which a writ of prohibition is sought to prevent the State Board of Examiners of Architects from proceeding with an adjudication hearing involving the license of the relator to practice architecture. A charge was brought against the relator under the provisions of Section
"You are hereby notified that the State Board of Examiners of Architects of the state of Ohio proposes to revoke your certificate to practice architecture within the state of Ohio by reason of fraud and deceit in your professional practice, such action being a ground for revocation of certificates of architecture under Section
"The charges against you are based upon your continued course of conduct permitting an Ohio corporation, to-wit, A. M. Kinney, Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, to unlawfully practice architecture by acting as an agent of said corporation and as such performing services constituting the practice of architecture, well knowing that such practice of architecture by a corporation, through you, was unlawful; that while so engaged in making it possible for said corporation to unlawfully practice architecture, *Page 288 you did fraudulently and/or deceitfully represent, and allowed and permitted representations to be made by others to the effect that you were engaging in the practice of architecture as a partner in a fictitious non-existent partnership known as `A. M. Kinney Associates' knowing full well you were in fact an agent of, and performing such services as, an agent of A. M. Kinney, Inc."
The relator raises the question as to whether the respondent board is attempting to revoke relator's license upon the basis of a charge which, in substance, describes no offense for which it has statutory authority of revocation, and that, therefore, the respondent should have no right to adjudicate. The brief of the relator also raises the question as to whether they have an adequate remedy other than prohibition.
The writ of prohibition is a high prerogative writ to be used with great caution in the furtherance of justice and only when there is no other regular ordinary or adequate remedy. See State,ex rel. Nolan, v. ClenDening,
Has the State Board of Examiners of Architects of the state of Ohio jurisdiction to do the acts which the relator is asking this court to prohibit? Section
The respondent, State Board of Examiners of Architects of the state of Ohio, is a board subject to the provisions of Chapter 119 of the Revised Code, commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act. *Page 289
Section
Relator concedes that it has been assumed by many that under the provisions of Section
Section
"Any person aggrieved by any act of any board, commission or agency created under or by virtue of Chapters 4701. to 4741., inclusive, of the Revised Code may register such grievance with a board of review, consisting of the Secretary of State, who shall act as chairman, Auditor of State, and Treasurer of State * * *."
The acts of this Board of Review are also subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It would appear that Section
The demurrer will be sustained for the reason that the state board has jurisdiction to do the acts complained of and the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.
The writ will be, and hereby is, denied.
Writ denied.
BRYANT, P. J., concurs.
MILLER, J., not participating. *Page 290