Wilder v. Wilder
This text of 15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 184 (Wilder v. Wilder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The motion filed in this cause to dismiss the appeal should be granted.
The action in the court of common pleas was one in partition. On the issues joined between the parties the court rendered a final decree determining the rights of the parties on March 28, 1900. From this decree an appeal might have been taken. McRoberts v. Lockwood, 49 Ohio St. 374 [34 N. E. Rep. 734],
On January 22, 1903, Heilker & Heilker filed a motion in said cause for an allowance of attorney fees. This motion was overruled by the court on March 17, 1902; from the overruling of this motion, Heilker & Heilker prosecute this appeal. An appeal does not lie from the action of the court on a motion in an action of this character. Error is the only remedy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-wilder-ohcircthamilton-1903.