Preg v. Preg

Ohio Court of Appeals

Preg v. Preg

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 433

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 1928

DocketNo. 8364

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 433 (Preg v. Preg) 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

Preg v. Preg, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FULL TEXT.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

In the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff filed an action under favor of Section 11631 of the General Code, to modify a certain judgment that had been rendered in the Court of Common Pleas at a prior term of said Court. The action was based upon the claim that the judgment in question was obtained by the fraud of the defendant. It appears from the record that subsequently the action was determined adversely to the claim of the plaintiff who thereupon, appealed the case to this Court. A motion has been filed to dismiss the. appeal upon the ground that the original action or proceeding is not appealable.

We are of the opinion that this motion must be allowed on the authority of Taylor v. Fitch, 12 OS. 169, and Gifford, Admr. v. Ryan, 9, O. App. 419.

In the case first cited it was held that a proceeding to vacate or modify a judgment rendered at a former term was a special proceeding and reviewable in error only.

In the case of Gifford Admr. v. Ryan, Supra, the same doctrine was adhered to and it was there decided that an action under Section 11631, Supra, is not appealable.

It follows that the appeal herein, must be and is dismissed.

Mauck, J., and Cushing, J., concur.

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

FULL TEXT.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

In the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff filed an action under favor of Section 11631 of the General Code, to modify a certain judgment that had been rendered in the Court of Common Pleas at a prior term of said Court. The action was based upon the claim that the judgment in question was obtained by the fraud of the defendant. It appears from the record that subsequently the action was determined adversely to the claim of the plaintiff who thereupon, appealed the case to this Court. A motion has been filed to dismiss the. appeal upon the ground that the original action or proceeding is not appealable.

We are of the opinion that this motion must be allowed on the authority of Taylor v. Fitch, 12 OS. 169, and Gifford, Admr. v. Ryan, 9, O. App. 419.

In the case first cited it was held that a proceeding to vacate or modify a judgment rendered at a former term was a special proceeding and reviewable in error only.

In the case of Gifford Admr. v. Ryan, Supra, the same doctrine was adhered to and it was there decided that an action under Section 11631, Supra, is not appealable.

It follows that the appeal herein, must be and is dismissed.

Mauck, J., and Cushing, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preg-v-preg-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack