Case ID: ohio-st_25/html/0617-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Carroll v. Michael O’Conner.
    Application is not authorized to be made to this court to review directly the proceedings of a justice of the peace in forcible entry and detention, or of forcible detention only, notwithstanding leave to file a petition in error hj the Common Pleas may have been refused.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of a justice of the peace of. Greene county, in .an action of forcible detention.
    The judgment of restitution was rendered by the justice ■on the 24th of August, 1875. Leave was refused to file a petition in error in the Court of Common Pleas, by a judge of that court, and the defendant in the action now makes application for leave to file a petition in error in this court.
    
      Winans, Darlington § Smith, for the motion.
    
      Hawes § Sabin, contra.
   By the Court.

The action of forcible entry and detention, or of forcible detention only, is intended to be a speedy and summary mode for the recovery, in the cases specified in the statute, of lands and tenements. It is expressly provided that the judgment shall not be a bar to any after action brought by either party.

Special provision is made for reviewing, on leave, the proceedings of the justice, by the Court of Common Pleas. Justices’ act, sec. 186, as amended April 5,1866, S. & S.-415. And by see. 188 of the same act (S. & C. 794), and see. 524 of the code, as amended May 1,1862 (S. &. S. 568), provision is made for staying execution of the judgment, at any time before the writ of restitution is returned, on the filing of a petition in error, and entering into an undertaking in the Court of Common Pleas in the mode prescribed. Sections 519 and 525 of the code (S. & C. 1104;, S. & S. 568) do not refer to such proceedings.

Prom a consideration of these statutes, we are of opinion that application to this court to review directly the proceedings of the justice is not authorized, notwithstanding-leave to file a petition in error in the Court of Common. Pleas may have been refused.

Motion overruled.