Martin v. Gunnison

Hamilton Circuit Court

Martin v. Gunnison

14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided July 1, 1902·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff in error having faded to give bond within the prescribed time in accordance with the order of the common pleas, the attached property was never brought into this court and that this court has no jurisdiction of the same, and, hence, can make no order of any kind in regard to the same or pass upon the motion of the defendant in error. If any further entries or orders of court are necessary they must be sought in the court of common pleas.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff in error having faded to give bond within the prescribed time in accordance with the order of the common pleas, the attached property was never brought into this court and that this court has no jurisdiction of the same, and, hence, can make no order of any kind in regard to the same or pass upon the motion of the defendant in error. If any further entries or orders of court are necessary they must be sought in the court of common pleas.

Martin v. Gunnison, 14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1902).

Pincite

14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679 (Martin v. Gunnison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.