State v. Hayslip

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Hayslip

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 21, 1914·No. Nos. 14426 and 14427·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

We find that in Ohio the common-law writs and pleas are designated and defined by statute just as crimes are designated and defined by statute. The writs of coram nobis and co-ram vobis, which are invoked in behalf of the defendants in error, are no part of the criminal jurisprudence of the state of Ohio.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, C. J., Shauck, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

We find that in Ohio the common-law writs and pleas are designated and defined by statute just as crimes are designated and defined by statute. The writs of coram nobis and co-ram vobis, which are invoked in behalf of the defendants in error, are no part of the criminal jurisprudence of the state of Ohio.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, C. J., Shauck, Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

State v. Hayslip, 90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199 (Ohio 1914).

Pincite

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199 (State v. Hayslip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.