Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0766-01.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

No. 846
    RICKETTS v. ALLEN
    Ohio Supreme Court.
    No. 20775.
    Decided Nov. 2, 1927.
    OPINION REPORTED IN PULL.
    Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
    291. — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. — Denial of relief from result of plaintiff's own errors and omissions does not present constitutional question.
    Error to Montgomery Appeals.
    Petition dismissed.
    L. B. Mcllheney, Dayton, for Ricketts.
    Marshall & Harlan, Dayton, for Allen.
    This is a proceeding to reverse the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county. The petition in' this cause is filed in this court as a matter ■of right, the plaintiff in error claiming a constitutional question.
    The ease originated in the court of common pleas, wherein Ricketts sought to enjoin the collection of a certain judgment theretofore obtained against him in the court of common pleas of Montgomery county by one Victoria 'Shields Allen in an action for breach of promise of marriage. The history of the case indicates that the trial resulted in favor of said Victoria Shields Allen by the recovery of a verdict of $5,750. It was sought to review the record of this case in the Court of Appeals; hut in that court the petition in error was dismissed for the reason that summons in error was not served upon the defendant in error or her counsel within the statutory time, that •court holding that it had no jurisdiction. This judgment was affirmed by this court.
    It is now sought by an original action in •equity to permanently enjoin the collection of said judgment, it being claimed that the same is void because of the failure of the trial judge 'to vacate the bench upon an affidavit of prejudice being filed; second, for fraud in obtaining the judgment; and, third, because the same 'is based upon perjured testimony; by reason ■of which plaintiff in error was denied due ■process of law and equal protection of the law as guaranteed to him by the state and federal constitutions.
    In the court of common pleas a demurrer ■was filed to the amended petition, which demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff not desiring to plead further, an appeal was prose■cuted to the Court of Appeals. In that court a demurrer to the amended petition was sustained, to which plaintiff excepted, and a temporary restraining order was granted in order to allow Ricketts to file his petition as a matter of right in this court, seeking to review and reverse the action of the courts below.
   BY THE COURT.

The plaintiff in error claims that he has been deprived of due process of law and equal protection of the law, and that, therefore, a constitutional question is presented entitling him to file his petition in error in this court as a matter of right.

An examination of the record, including the amended petition filed in the court of common pleas, shows that the statutory provisions, if taken advantage of by plaintiff in error, would have afforded complete protection of his rights. Denial of relief from the result of his own errors and omissions does not present a constitutional question. The petition in error is therefore dismissed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ., not participating.)