State ex rel. Liberty Mills, Inc. v. Locker

• Decision Date: 12 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-1542,85-1542
• Parties: , 22 O.B.R. 136 The STATE ex rel. LIBERTY MILLS, INC., v. LOCKER, Director.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 102

22 Ohio St.3d 102

488 N.E.2d 883, 22 O.B.R. 136

The STATE ex rel. LIBERTY MILLS, INC., v. LOCKER, Director.

No. 85-1542.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 12, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where an applicant for an agricultural commodity handler's license is in full compliance with the requirements set forth in R.C. Chapter 926, the Director of Agriculture is required to issue such license.

2. Where the Director of Agriculture denies an application for an agricultural commodity handler's license from an applicant who has fully complied with the requirements set forth in R.C. Chapter 926, mandamus is a proper action to obtain the issuance of the license.

Relator, Liberty Mills, Inc., is engaged in the business of handling agricultural commodities. Respondent, Dale L. Locker, is the Director of Agriculture.

In September 1985, relator filed two applications with respondent requesting the issuance of agricultural commodities handler's licenses. The applications were accompanied by the appropriate fees, a current financial statement and certificates of insurance insuring agricultural commodities to be handled by relator. Respondent denied the applications on the basis that an officer of relator was also an officer of another agricultural commodities handler that had been placed in receivership. In addition to requesting a hearing pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119, relator filed this action in mandamus requesting that respondent be compelled to issue the licenses sought by relator. Relator claims that respondent denied the applications on grounds that are legally insufficient. In subsequent exchanges of correspondence, respondent notified relator that an additional ground for denial of the licenses was that relator's financial statement did not fulfill the requirements of R.C. 926.06(C). Respondent required relator to submit to a full audit and relator complied.

Based upon the foregoing facts, relator contends that it has fully complied with the statutory requirements to have the licenses issue. Therefore, relator argues, respondent has a legal duty to issue the licenses and relator is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling such action by respondent.

Gamble & Hartshorn and Kenneth A. Gamble, Columbus, for relator.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., John K. Maguire and B. Douglas Anderson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

DOUGLAS, Justice.

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that must be granted with caution. R.C. 2731.01 provides that mandamus is " * * * a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." R.C. 2731.05 provides that "[t]he writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." In order for a writ of mandamus to issue, a relator must show that (1) he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Cody, v. Toner (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 22, 456 N.E.2d 813.

R.C. 926.04(A) provides that no person shall handle agricultural commodities without first obtaining a handler's license issued by the Director of Agriculture. To obtain a license, one must submit an application with the prescribed fee, R.C. 926.05(A) and (B); meet the financial requirements of R.C. 926.06(B); and submit a current financial statement, not more than six months old, prepared by a qualified person setting forth the information required by R.C. 926.06(C). In addition, an applicant, pursuant to R.C. 926.07(A), must file a certificate of insurance with the director, issued by an authorized insurer, insuring in the name of the applicant all agricultural commodities handled or which may be handled by the applicant.

Relator contends that it has complied with all of the statutory requirements and we determine this assertion to be accurate. We find where an applicant for an agricultural commodity handler's license is in full compliance with the requirements set forth in R.C. Chapter 926, the Director of Agriculture is required to issue such license.

Respondent contends, however, that pursuant to R.C. 926.06(A), it is discretionary with him, as director, whether or not to issue a license, the statute reading, "[t]he director of agriculture may issue a handler's license * * * [emphasis added.]" Respondent argues that since an officer of relator was previously an officer and stockholder in Sharrock Elevator, Inc., another grain handling company which failed and was placed in receivership, that the director was exercising his discretionary authority and, on this basis, had the authority to deny the licenses sought by relator. We do not agree with the director.

On November 20, 1985, there was filed with this court a copy of an order issued by the respondent in response to relator's administrative appeal. In that order, dated November 16, 1985, respondent affirmed the denial of relator's applications for licenses "because of the close connection between Liberty Mills, Inc. and Sharrock Elevator, Inc." The findings upon which the order was based were the same as those relied upon in the original denial, to wit: that relator was using the same facilities as the now defunct Sharrock Elevator, and that the wife of the president of Sharrock Elevator, an agent of Sharrock Elevator, was also an officer of relator. There was no finding that any of the statutory requirements had not been met.

Based upon the...