Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0276-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES, J", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 310
    No. 18214
    The Forest City Investment Co. v. Rosa Haas.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county
    1002. RECEIVERS — Appointment of proceeding not a chancery case — Court of Appeals may be reviewed on error — Not on appeal.
   JONES, J

1 An order appointing a 'receiver is an order affecting a substantial right mlade in a special proceeding and is a final order within the meaning of Section 12258, General Code. (Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Rd. Co. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St., 1, followed and approved.)

2. A proceeding for the appointment of a receiver does not constitute a chancery case within the purview of Section 6, Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution as amended in 1912. (Thompson v. Denton, 95 Ohio St., 333, overruled.)

3. Such an order is a judgment which may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals on error, but not on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Robinson, J, concurs in the judgment but dissents from the syllabus. Wanamiaker and Allen, JJ., not participating.