Featheringham v. Eckle

Ohio Court of Appeals

Featheringham v. Eckle

162 N.E.2d 493, 81 Ohio Law. Abs. 450, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 982

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 28, 1957

DocketNo. 243

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 N.E.2d 493 (Featheringham v. Eckle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Featheringham v. Eckle, 162 N.E.2d 493, 81 Ohio Law. Abs. 450, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 982 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion of the respondent to require the petitioner to make his petition definite and certain by specifically stating wherein he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty without legal authority as alleged.

Petitioner specifically avers that “he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty without legal authority, by Superintendent R. B. Eckle, in the London Prison Farm, London, Ohio.” (Emphasis ours.)

The petition conforms in every particular with the requirements of §2725.04 R. C., except the inclusion of a copy of the commitment by v/hich he is held as a prisoner. It has become the practice in this district for the respondent to file the mittimus with his answer to the petition.

The motion will be overruled.

HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and CRAWFORD, JJ, concur.

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