Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 276
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas. Read the opinion of the Court — 110 Ohio St. 188
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1924·No. No. 18214·Published

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

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

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 276 (Forest City Investment Co. v. Haas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.