Ragsdale v. Ragsdale

35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 376, 30 Ohio C.A. 128
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 15, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 376 (Ragsdale v. Ragsdale) 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
Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 376, 30 Ohio C.A. 128 (Ohio Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

HAMILTON, J.

A party found guilty of contempt may have his case reviewed on error under Sec. 12146' G. C.; and while no direct provision in the statute is made to review a refusal to punish for contempt by error proceedings, by analogy it would seem that this remedy may be invoked upon such refusal. But contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in their nature, can not be considered chancery cases, and such proeedings are not therefore appealable, but may be reviewed on error only.

Questions of custody of children are cognizable in a court of equity, and, when properly before such court, the court will make [377]*377necessary orders for the support of such children; but ño such question is before the court in the instant case.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Jones and Gorman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Denovchek v. Board of Trumbull County Commissioners
520 N.E.2d 1362 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)
American Zinc Oxide Co. v. Local Union No. 536
88 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 376, 30 Ohio C.A. 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragsdale-v-ragsdale-ohioctapp-1917.