Thompson, Exr. v. Gusler

Ohio Court of Appeals

Thompson, Exr. v. Gusler

167 N.E. 896, 32 Ohio App. 236, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 512, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 443

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1929

DocketNo 53

StatusPublished

This text of 167 N.E. 896 (Thompson, Exr. v. Gusler) 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

Thompson, Exr. v. Gusler, 167 N.E. 896, 32 Ohio App. 236, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 512, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

HUGHES, J.

Under and by virtue of Article 4, Section 7 of the Constitution, when a majority vote of the people has been taken, these t"*o courts, to wit,' the probate court and the court of common pleas, shall be combined and shall be known as the court of common pleas. After this vote has been taken, there is but one court, the court of common pleas, and there can be no "’^h thing as an appeal taken from a judgment entered in one division of that court, to the court itself. There is no longer a probate court in Paulding county. It is a court of common pleas, with the same jurisdiction that the probate court of that countv formerly had.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.

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

HUGHES, J.

Under and by virtue of Article 4, Section 7 of the Constitution, when a majority vote of the people has been taken, these t"*o courts, to wit,' the probate court and the court of common pleas, shall be combined and shall be known as the court of common pleas. After this vote has been taken, there is but one court, the court of common pleas, and there can be no "’^h thing as an appeal taken from a judgment entered in one division of that court, to the court itself. There is no longer a probate court in Paulding county. It is a court of common pleas, with the same jurisdiction that the probate court of that countv formerly had.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 N.E. 896, 32 Ohio App. 236, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 512, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-exr-v-gusler-ohioctapp-1929.