State ex rel. Christopher v. Amrine

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Christopher v. Amrine

80 N.E.2d 648, 51 Ohio Law. Abs. 223, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 797

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1947

DocketNo. 161

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 N.E.2d 648 (State ex rel. Christopher v. Amrine) 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

State ex rel. Christopher v. Amrine, 80 N.E.2d 648, 51 Ohio Law. Abs. 223, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 797 (Ohio Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.:

This is an appeal on'questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Madison County, dismissing the petition of the relator-appellant. The action was in habeas corpus.

Pour grounds are set up in the assignment of errors, determination of all of which requires consideration of the evidence which was before the trial court and upon which the judgment was predicated. There is no bill of exceptions, stipulation of the parties, nor separate findings of law and fact. Indeed, the original papers, including the indictment, in the criminal action wherein the relator was tried, convicted and sentenced for murder in the first degree, and in which the trial judge recommendd mercy, are not in the files. Thus, unfortunately, we have no subject matter upon which we could base any determination of the interesting questions sought to be presented by the errors assigned.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

WISEMAN, PJ, and MILLER, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.:

This is an appeal on'questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Madison County, dismissing the petition of the relator-appellant. The action was in habeas corpus.

Pour grounds are set up in the assignment of errors, determination of all of which requires consideration of the evidence which was before the trial court and upon which the judgment was predicated. There is no bill of exceptions, stipulation of the parties, nor separate findings of law and fact. Indeed, the original papers, including the indictment, in the criminal action wherein the relator was tried, convicted and sentenced for murder in the first degree, and in which the trial judge recommendd mercy, are not in the files. Thus, unfortunately, we have no subject matter upon which we could base any determination of the interesting questions sought to be presented by the errors assigned.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

WISEMAN, PJ, and MILLER, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.E.2d 648, 51 Ohio Law. Abs. 223, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-christopher-v-amrine-ohioctapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack