Evans v. Sacks

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 116
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 14, 1962
DocketNo. 37210
StatusPublished

This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 116 (Evans v. Sacks) 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
Evans v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 116 (Ohio 1962).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is a distinction between a court acting without jurisdiction and acting with jurisdiction but erroneously. The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of appellant and of the subject matter, i. e., jurisdiction to try the appellant for the crime for which he was indicted. Appellant could have objected to the alleged irregularities in the indictment and had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from an adverse judgment to review the alleged errors and irregularities of which he here complains. He cannot now have such a review by a proceeding in habeas corpus. See State v. Wozniak, 172 Ohio St., 517, 522.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., not participating.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-sacks-ohio-1962.