Cox v. Cox

104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 611
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1922
DocketNo. 16777
StatusPublished

This text of 104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 611 (Cox v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cox v. Cox, 104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 611 (Ohio 1922).

Opinion

It appears from the record that this was a proceeding wherein plaintiff in error filed his motion to set aside the judgment of the court of common pleas dismissing his petition for divorce. That motion was overruled by the court of common pleas; whereupon plaintiff in error instituted proceedings in the court of appeals; seeking to reverse the action of the lower court in refusing to set aside its former order or judgment. The court of appeals, in its journal entry found, “that it is without jurisdiction to review, affirm or reverse the order of the common pleas court denying the motion to set aside the judgment rendered in said court, for the reason that said order is not a judgment.” ~\Thereúpony the court of appeals dismissed the proceeding in error for want of jurisdiction to entertain and determine the same.

On consideration of this record, it is adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said court of [612]*612appeals be, and the same is hereby, reversed on the authority of Chandler & Taylor Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., ante, 188, and this case, is remanded to the court of appeals, requiring it to entertain jurisdiction of said proceeding in error, (and that it consider and determine the questions arising in said proceeding in error.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 Ohio St. (N.S.) 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-cox-ohio-1922.