Grosse v. Oppenheimer

Hamilton Circuit Court

Grosse v. Oppenheimer

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 831, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 374, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 210

DecidedJanuary 18, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 831 (Grosse v. Oppenheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grosse v. Oppenheimer, 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 831, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 374, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 210 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SWING, J.

This is an action in this court on error to the judgment of the court of common pleas. In that case it was an action for malicious prosecu[832]*832tion. A general demurrer was filed to the ^petition, which, the court sustained. In doing so, we think the court committed no error. The petition alleges, “that said cause was terminated on the thirteenth day of November by said plaintiff being obliged to pay the costs of said prosecution.” We take this allegation to mean that she was found guilty of the ■ charge and fined the costs. There is no allegation in the petition that the judgment of conviction was procured by fraud or by any other improper means.

“The general rule is that a 'conviction in criminal proceedings is conclusive proof of probable cause unless procured by false or fraudulent testimony or other unlawful means.” 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 666.

There is no cause of action stated in the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Giffen and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

SWING, J.

This is an action in this court on error to the judgment of the court of common pleas. In that case it was an action for malicious prosecu[832]*832tion. A general demurrer was filed to the ^petition, which, the court sustained. In doing so, we think the court committed no error. The petition alleges, “that said cause was terminated on the thirteenth day of November by said plaintiff being obliged to pay the costs of said prosecution.” We take this allegation to mean that she was found guilty of the ■ charge and fined the costs. There is no allegation in the petition that the judgment of conviction was procured by fraud or by any other improper means.

“The general rule is that a 'conviction in criminal proceedings is conclusive proof of probable cause unless procured by false or fraudulent testimony or other unlawful means.” 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 666.

There is no cause of action stated in the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Giffen and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 831, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 374, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grosse-v-oppenheimer-ohcircthamilton-1908.