Whitlock v. State

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1147
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided April 13, 1936·No. No 15395·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

[394] OPINION

By KLINGER, PJ.

In the opinion of this court the overruling of a plea in abatement is not a final order under this section of the statutes. §13459-1 GC; §11582 GC.

See: 12 Ohio Jurisprudence, 741.

Wagner v State, 42 Oh St, 537.

Inskeep v State, 35 Oh St 482.

Inskeep v State, 36 Oh St 145.

Bogart v State, 9 Abs, 436.

This court, sitting in Wood County, in the case of State v James, held that a motion overruling a plea in abatement was not a final order from which error could be prosecuted and the note in the Bogart case in 9 Abs, refers to this ruling by this court.

The appeal and petition in error will be dismissed at the cost of the appellants.

CROW and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur.

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

Whitlock v. State, 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 1936).

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393 (Whitlock v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Akron v. Mingo
155 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1958)
State v. Roberts
153 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1957)
State v. Himlerick
137 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1954)
State v. Theisen
108 N.E.2d 854 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1952)
State v. Norman
77 N.E.2d 76 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1946)