In re Rosenthal

Ohio Court of Appeals

In re Rosenthal

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 291, 25 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 383

DecidedNovember 22, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 291 (In re Rosenthal) 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

In re Rosenthal, 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 291, 25 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 383 (Ohio Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The superior court of Cincinnati has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court by inherent right and under Secs. 12136 and 12137 G. C. It had jurisdiction to try the cause on hearing in which Rosenthal was committed for contempt of court. Whether testimony in that cause was properly being heard on the 5th and 6th days of November when it had previously been continued until the 12th of November raises a question merely as to the regularity and correctness of the proceedings. No matter how irregular and erroneous its proceedings may have been, they can not be reviewed by habeas corpus. A writ of error is the appropriate remedy. A writ of habeas corpus can not be used to perform the office of a writ of error. D. Fusfield, In re, 3 O. App. 224 [36 O. C. C. 72; 21 C. N. S. 62]; Shaw, Ex parte, 7 Ohio St. 81; Van Hagan, Ex parte 25 Ohio St. 426; McGorray v. Sutter, 80 Ohio St. 400 [89 N. E. 10; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 165n; 131 Am. St. 719].

The court of common pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus proceedings in this case, and its judgment must therefore be reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The superior court of Cincinnati has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court by inherent right and under Secs. 12136 and 12137 G. C. It had jurisdiction to try the cause on hearing in which Rosenthal was committed for contempt of court. Whether testimony in that cause was properly being heard on the 5th and 6th days of November when it had previously been continued until the 12th of November raises a question merely as to the regularity and correctness of the proceedings. No matter how irregular and erroneous its proceedings may have been, they can not be reviewed by habeas corpus. A writ of error is the appropriate remedy. A writ of habeas corpus can not be used to perform the office of a writ of error. D. Fusfield, In re, 3 O. App. 224 [36 O. C. C. 72; 21 C. N. S. 62]; Shaw, Ex parte, 7 Ohio St. 81; Van Hagan, Ex parte 25 Ohio St. 426; McGorray v. Sutter, 80 Ohio St. 400 [89 N. E. 10; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 165n; 131 Am. St. 719].

The court of common pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus proceedings in this case, and its judgment must therefore be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 291, 25 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenthal-ohioctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack