Karacsony v. Stokich

Ohio Court of Appeals

Karacsony v. Stokich

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 280, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1440

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1923

DocketNo. 854

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 280 (Karacsony v. Stokich) 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

Karacsony v. Stokich, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 280, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1440 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action in the Common Pleas of Summit County to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution, wherein Alex Karacsony was plaintiff and Loza Stokich was defendant. After the petition and answer had been filed, but before trial, plaintiff, declaring that he was a minor, under 18 years of age, made application to the court for leave to file an amended petition by his next friend. The journal showed that a motion for that purpose was filed, heard and submitted to the court and that it “dismissed said cause of action without prejudice, Exceptions.” Karac-sony brought error proceedings to the Court of Appeals and Stokich filed a motion to prosecute the action. Held:

1. As the filing of a petition in error is the bringing of a new action, and as the statute requiring suits of minors to be brought by next friend applies to error proceedings, the motion to dismiss will have to be granted.

There is another reason why relief cannot be granted. No bill of exceptions was taken at the hearing of the motion filed by plaintiff .in the court below. Hence this court is confined to the record as it is. Said motion, though in files, is not a part of the record, but its import is contained in the journal entry respecting it. There is in the files an affidavit in support of the motion, but that is not a part of the record and could become so only by being embodied in a bil\ of exceptions and it is only by a bill of exceptions that this court could know that such affidavit was the only evidence before the- court on the hearing of the motion. This court then is without any knowledge as to why the judgment of dismissal was entered by the court, and it is presumed that the court’s action was justified. Motion to dismiss-petition in error granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action in the Common Pleas of Summit County to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution, wherein Alex Karacsony was plaintiff and Loza Stokich was defendant. After the petition and answer had been filed, but before trial, plaintiff, declaring that he was a minor, under 18 years of age, made application to the court for leave to file an amended petition by his next friend. The journal showed that a motion for that purpose was filed, heard and submitted to the court and that it “dismissed said cause of action without prejudice, Exceptions.” Karac-sony brought error proceedings to the Court of Appeals and Stokich filed a motion to prosecute the action. Held:

1. As the filing of a petition in error is the bringing of a new action, and as the statute requiring suits of minors to be brought by next friend applies to error proceedings, the motion to dismiss will have to be granted.

There is another reason why relief cannot be granted. No bill of exceptions was taken at the hearing of the motion filed by plaintiff .in the court below. Hence this court is confined to the record as it is. Said motion, though in files, is not a part of the record, but its import is contained in the journal entry respecting it. There is in the files an affidavit in support of the motion, but that is not a part of the record and could become so only by being embodied in a bil\ of exceptions and it is only by a bill of exceptions that this court could know that such affidavit was the only evidence before the- court on the hearing of the motion. This court then is without any knowledge as to why the judgment of dismissal was entered by the court, and it is presumed that the court’s action was justified. Motion to dismiss-petition in error granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 280, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karacsony-v-stokich-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack