Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_16/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Winch, J.; Henry, J., and Marvin, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JURISDICTION ON REVIEW.
    Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
    The Widows & Orphans Fund v. The German Roman Catholic Central Verein et al.
    Decided, March 23, 1908.
    
      Order of Reference Rot Reviewable — Error Lies But Once.
    
    1. An order referring a cause to a referee is not a ■ final order reviewable on error.
    2. There can not be more than one review oh error of the same judgment. All grounds of error must be stated in one petition.
    
      M. P. Mooney, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Francis J. Wing and Hermam Preusser, contra.
   Winch, J.; Henry, J., and Marvin, J.,

concur.

While that part of the1 order of the common pleas court, now complained of, re-referring the cause to a referee, appears to have been unnecessary, in the light of the real issues made by the pleadings and also appears to be in conflict wtili the former order of the same court made on April 5, 1907, yet we are without jurisdiction to reverse it, because such an order is not a final order, within the purview of Section 6707, Revised Statutes, reviewable on error by the circuit court under the provisions of Section 6709, Revised Statutes. The mere reference of a case determines no rights. It is not to be presumed that upon the coming in of a second report in this case, any erroneous order will be made, based upon it; and should there be, it will be time enough to complain of it after the final order is made.

Another cogent reason exists why this petition in error shonlcl be dismissed.

We have already entertained one petition in error from the same judgment, and determined it. There can not be more than one review on error. Railroad Co. v. Belt, 36 O. S., 93.

It is immaterial that the former case in this court concerned only such part of the order as appointed a receiver, for it was the duty of the plaintiff in error in one case to point out all the errors by which he claimed to be prejudiced, and not base a separate petition in error upon each alleged ground of error.

The petition in error is dismissed.