# State ex rel. Russell v. Duncan

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 2, 1992 · 64 Ohio St. 3d 538

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765408

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Russell v. Duncan
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 64 Ohio St. 3d 538; 597 N.E.2d 142; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1914
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765408

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming sua sponte dismissal of mandamus action based on, inter alia, the presence of an adequate remedy at law via an action for damages for breach of contract
- affirming dismissal of mandamus action based on, inter alia, the presence of an adequate remedy at law via an action for breach of contract

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “Mandamus will not lie to enforce a private right against a private person.” State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141 , 40 O.O.2d 141 , 228 N.E.2d 631 , paragraph eight of the syllabus. Nor will the writ issue when the relator has an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42 , 15 O.O.3d 53 , 399 N.E.2d 81 .
The court of appeals correctly held that the relationship between the bank and appellant was that of debtor and creditor, a contractual undertaking. See Speroff v. First-Central Trust Co. (1948), 149 Ohio St. 415 , 37 O.O. 98 , 79 N.E.2d 119 , paragraph one of the syllabus, and Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. First *539 Natl. Bank (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 220, 223 , 17 O.O.3d 136, 138 , 407 N.E.2d 519, 522 . Therefore, appellant’s complaint does not state a cause of action against appellee as a private citizen or as a representative of the bank because an action for damages for breach of contract would be an adequate remedy at law.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765408. Public record. Not legal advice.