Case ID: ohio-law-abs_21/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By KLINGER, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WHITLOCK et v STATE
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
    No 15395.
    Decided April 13, 1936
    Payer, Corrigan, Cook & . Pilliod, Cleveland, for appellants.
    Frank T. Cullitan, Prosecuting Attorney, Cleveland, for appellee. ■
   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.