
    STATE ex BOSTWICK v MILLER et
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
    Nos 3051 & 3059.
    Decided Aug 26, 1940
    Cowan, Adams & Adams, Columbus, for plaintiff.
    Power & Barton, Columbus, for defendants.
   BY TljtE COURT:

The above entitled cause is now being determined on plaintiff’s motion to strike the second defense-in the amended answer of the Universal Films Exchange, Incorporated, on the ground that the same contains no allegation of fact is a legal conclusion, and a mere abstract statement of law.

The second defense of the amended answer reads as follows:

“For its second defense to the petition of the plaintiff filed herein the defendant says that plaintiff is not seeking this action to enforce an act which is specifically enjoined on the tax commission of Ohio by law, and that mandamus will not be ordered to control or regulate the general course of official conduct of the tax commission of Ohio requiring the supervision and control of a series of continuous acts by this court.”

Counsel for plaintiff in support of their motion cite and comment upotf the following authorities:

Knox County Bank v Lloyd’s Administrators, 18 Oh St 353.

McBride v Tyler Company, 3 Abs 698.

Martz v Cincinnati H. & D. R. Co., 12 O. C. C. 144.

Williams v Burkheimer, 8 O. N. P. 134.

Harris v Webb, 22 O. N. P. 359; 31 O. Jur. 897; 21 R. C. L. 596.

The authorities cited adequately support plaintiff's motion to strike, and the order is so made.

Entry may be presented accordingly.

HORNBECK, PJ. and BARNES, J., concur.

GEIGER, J., not participating.  