In Re Nixon

Ohio Supreme Court

In Re Nixon

25 N.E.2d 939, 136 Ohio St. 364, 136 Ohio St. (N.S.) 364, 16 Ohio Op. 501, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 573

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1940

Docket27689

StatusPublished

This text of 25 N.E.2d 939 (In Re Nixon) 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

In Re Nixon, 25 N.E.2d 939, 136 Ohio St. 364, 136 Ohio St. (N.S.) 364, 16 Ohio Op. 501, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 573 (Ohio 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This cause involves an appeal as of right from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Brown county, Ohio, which granted a writ of habeas corpus freeing one Stanley Nixon from imprisonment and restraint of his liberty by one S. D. Miller, sheriff of that county.

The journal entry of the Court of Appeals shows that the cause, which was an original action therein, was heard upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs, filed in this court, recite that the cause was submitted to that court on an agreed statement of facts and set forth the alleged agreement. An examination of the record discloses that there is no bill of excep *365 tions and that no agreed statement of facts was ever-filed nor finding of facts made in the court below. All that the record discloses is that the cause was submitted therein, as stated, upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs filed in this court are of course no part of the record in that court.

It follows that, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

This cause involves an appeal as of right from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Brown county, Ohio, which granted a writ of habeas corpus freeing one Stanley Nixon from imprisonment and restraint of his liberty by one S. D. Miller, sheriff of that county.

The journal entry of the Court of Appeals shows that the cause, which was an original action therein, was heard upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs, filed in this court, recite that the cause was submitted to that court on an agreed statement of facts and set forth the alleged agreement. An examination of the record discloses that there is no bill of excep *365 tions and that no agreed statement of facts was ever-filed nor finding of facts made in the court below. All that the record discloses is that the cause was submitted therein, as stated, upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs filed in this court are of course no part of the record in that court.

It follows that, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 N.E.2d 939, 136 Ohio St. 364, 136 Ohio St. (N.S.) 364, 16 Ohio Op. 501, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nixon-ohio-1940.