Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_5/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN.
    [Circuit Court of Darke County.]
    A. A. North v. John A. Smith et al.
    Decided, November Term, 1904.
    
      Guardian — Removal of for Cause — Error to Court of Common Pleas Proceedings not Reviewatle.
    
    The circuit court is without jurisdiction to review on error an order of the court of common pleas removing a guardian for cause, made on appeal from the probate court.
    Wilson, J.; Sullivan, J., and Dustin, J., concur.
    By a proceeding in the probate court, the plaintiff in error, a guardian, was by the order of that court removed for cause. An appeal was prosecuted to the court of common pleas under favor of Section 6407 of the Revised Statutes as amended (95 O. L., 406).
   That court also made an order of removal.

It is now sought to prosecute error proceedings in the circuit court to review the order of the court of common pleas.

A. A. North, W. T. Stubbs, for plaintiff in error.

Meeker & Gaskill, Anderson, Bowman & Anderson, for defendant in error.

Has the circuit court- jurisdiction ?

Before tbe amendment of Sections 6708 and 6407 (95 O. L., 391, 406j, Revised Statutes, neither error nor appeal could be prosecuted from an order of the probate court removing or refusing to remove a guardian. This was so for the reason, it was held, that such an order did not affect a substantial right. Had it been such order as is defined in Section 6707, Revised Statutes, error or appeal would lie under the general statutes without special provision made therefor. It was the policy of the law to confer upon the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The amendment extends t-he jurisdiction in error and on appeal to the court of common pleas. It does not change the character of the order, as, though final, not affecting a substantial right. It does not enlarge the jurisdiction in error of the circuit court. Section 6709, which confers jurisdiction, is the same as before. The order that may be reviewed by virtue of its provisions'is such as is defined in Section 6707, and we have seen that the order in question is not of that character. It can not, therefore, be reviewed by the circuit court.

Society v. Ely, 56 O. S., 405, and Davis v. Kauffman, 55 O. S., 556, relied upon by the plaintiff in error, are not in conflict with this view. The orders there reviewed were held to affect a substantial right. Subsequently Munger v. Jeffries, 62 O. S., 149, holds that an order such as is involved here is not reviewable under the general provisions of the statute. Reading the order into Section 6708 enlarged the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas by that much more than is conferred by Section 6707. But it did not by that much enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts all along the line. Notwithstanding the amendment, it should be said that it is the policy of the law now, to make the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas final, as it was before the policy to make that of the probate court final. The reason for the policy still obtains, and the amendment should not be given scope beyond its letter.

The petition in error will be dismissed.