Case ID: ohio-st_34/html/0289-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gibbons v. The Catholic Institute of Cincinnati.
    1. Section 3, chapter 1, title 4, of the revised code (75 Ohio L. 804), when applied to the Superior Court of Cincinnati, must be construed in connection with section 8 of the act of May 10, 1878 (75 Ohio L. 140). Construing the sections together, it appears that a judgment rendered1 by the superior court, at general term, was not intended to be embraced, in said section 3, and thus made reviewable by the district court.
    2. The validity of section'8 of the act of May 10, 1878, is not affected by the fact that the remainder of the act is unconstitutional. That section* is separable from the remainder of the act.
    Error to the District Court of Hamilton county.
    A judgment was recovered by the Catholic Institute of' Cincinnati against Joseph Gibbons and Anna M. Gibbons,, his wife, at the July term of the Superior Court of Cincinnati, the cause having been reserved from special term.
    On the 14th of October, 1878, Gibbons and wife, the-present plaintiffs in error, filed a petition in error in the-District Court of Hamilton county, to reverse the judgment.
    The Catholic Institute, the defendant in error, appeared and waived the service of process, and filed a motion to-dismiss the proceeding in error, on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter.
    The district court granted the motion, and dismissed the. petition in error for want of jurisdiction.
    To reverse this order of dismissal, the present petition in* error has been filed in this court.
    
      Coffin S;- Mitchell, fbr plaintiff in error.
    
      Follett § Dawson, for defendants in error.
   White, C. J.

Section 8 of the act of May 10, 1878 (75-Ohio L. 140), repeals section 17 of the act of April 7,1854,, to establish the Superior Court of Cincinnati, and all portions of the act last named conferring upon the superior •court, at general term, jurisdiction to entertain petitions in •error, to review the judgments and orders of the court rendered at special term. Section 8, above referred to, took ■effect on the first Monday of October, 1878, and until that time the superior court, at general term, had jurisdiction to review, on petition in error, the judgments and orders rendered at special term, notwithstanding the jurisdiction in error conferred on the district court by the revised code •of May 14, 1878, which took effect on the first of September of the same year. On the first Monday of October, 1878, all proceedings in error, pending in the superior ■court at general term, were required, by said section 8, to be transferred to the district court for determination. The jurisdiction of.the district court was substituted for that •of the superior court at general term, in regal’d to cases in •error arising on judgments or orders rendered at special ■term. And the provision, in the section, that thereafter the “ final judgments and orders of said superior court may be reversed, vacated, or modified by said district court, in ■the same manner, and by like proceedings, as judgments and orders of the court of common pleas,” has reference ■only to such judgments and orders as, prior to that time, were reviewable by the superior court at general term, ■namely, the judgments and orders rendered at special term.

Section 3, chapter 1, title 4, of the revised code (75 Ohio X. 804), when applied to the Superior Court of Cincinnati, ■must be construed in connection with sectiou 8, above re-ferredto; and, thus construed, it seems to us the district ■'court were right in holding that a judgment, rendered by the superior court at general term., was not intended to be embraced in said section 3, and thus made review;able 'by the district court.

It is proper to add that we do not regard the validity •of section 8 of the act of May 10, 1878, as affected by the fact, that the remainder of the act has been declared unconstitutional. The section in question is separable ifrom the remainder of the act.

Judgment affirmed.