Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas

Ohio Supreme Court

Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 276

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1924

DocketNo. 18214

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 276 (Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas) 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

Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 276 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J

1 An order appointing a 'receiver is an order affecting a substantial right mlade in a special proceeding and is a final order within the meaning of Section 12258, General Code. (Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Rd. Co. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St., 1, followed and approved.)

2. A proceeding for the appointment of a receiver does not constitute a chancery case within the purview of Section 6, Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution as amended in 1912. (Thompson v. Denton, 95 Ohio St., 333, overruled.)

3. Such an order is a judgment which may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals on error, but not on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Robinson, J, concurs in the judgment but dissents from the syllabus. Wanamiaker and Allen, JJ., not participating.

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