Martin v. Gunnison

Hamilton Circuit Court

Martin v. Gunnison

14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679

DecidedJuly 1, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679 (Martin v. Gunnison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ohio C.C. Dec. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-gunnison-ohcircthamilton-1902.