Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 27
    FOREST CITY INVEST. CO. v. HAAS
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 5161.
    Decided Nov. 12, 1923
    85. APPEAL — Appeal can be prosecuted only from final order — Appointment of receiver during pendency of action is not a final order.
    Attorneys — Friebolin & Byers, Cleveland, for the Forest City Investment Co.; Kerruish, Kerruish, Hartshorn & Spooner, Cleveland, for Haas.
   VICKERY, P. J.

Epitomized Opinion

Rosa Haas brought an action in Cuyahoga Common Pleas against the Forest City Investment Company, for an accounting, appointment of a receiver and other equitable relief. A motion was made by her for the' appointment of a receiver pending litigation, and one was appointed. The defendant company appealed from this ' decision. A motion was filed by Haas to dismiss the appeal In sustaining .this motion the Court of Appeals held:

1. An appeal can be prosecuted only from the final court order wh'ch involves a complete determination of the case.

2. The action of the trial court or judge in granting a receiver during a pending action does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties, and consequently such an order is not a final order, and moreover does not dispose of the entire ease or involve its merits in any way.