State ex rel. Piletich v. Kovachy

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 298
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1957
DocketNo. 35043
StatusPublished

This text of 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 298 (State ex rel. Piletich v. Kovachy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Piletich v. Kovachy, 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 298 (Ohio 1957).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Belatrix contends that the Conrt of Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider and grant the motion to return the hill of exceptions; and that, under the statute, the court can return the bill only when it finds an omission occurring through accident or error.

The statute (Section 2321.14, Bevised Code) provides:

“When justice requires it, upon notice to all parties, an omission in a bill of exceptions, occurring through accident or error, may be corrected by the reviewing court, or it may be remanded to the trial court for such correction.”

The statute is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed. The Court of Appeals was acting within the jurisdiction invested in it by that statute in remanding the bill of exceptions to the trial court. Whether error intervened in the exercise of that jurisdiction is not determinable in a proceeding in prohibition, the relatrix having an adequate remedy by way of appeal.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained, and the writ of prohibition is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Bell, Matthias and Herbert, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-piletich-v-kovachy-ohio-1957.