Koring v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.
10 Ohio Law. Abs. 474, 1931 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1439
Opinion
Is such order a final order?
Sec 12,258 GC provides as follows:
“An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when in effect it determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding, or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, is a final order which may be vacated, modified, or reversed as provided in this title.”
In Neighbors, et al v Thistle Down Co., et al, 26 Oh Ap, 324, it is held, syllabus, paragraphs 2 and 3.
“Order overruling motion to remove receiver is not an order affecting substantial [475] rights of parties to which error may be prosecuted.”
“Where receiver was appointed and court subsequently overruled motion to remove receiver, petition in error filed more than seventy days after order appointing receiver was entered by Common Pleas Court, though within seventy days of order overruling motion to, remove, was not filed in time.”
We approve the decision in this case.
A motion to dismiss the petition in error will be sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Koring v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 474, 1931 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1439 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931).
10 Ohio Law. Abs. 474 (Koring v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Morris v. Investment Life Ins. Co. of America
204 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1965)
Industrial Credit Co. v. Ken Ray Corp.
127 N.E.2d 33 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1955)