Case ID: ohio-cc-dec_28/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES (0. B.), J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPEALr — MANDAMUS.
    [Butler (1st) Court of Appeals,
    November 22, 1915.]
    Jones, Jones and Gorman, JJ.
    State, ex rel. Welch v. Deneen (Dir. Pub. Safety, etc.)
    1. Jurisdiction on Appeal Not Defeated by Failure to Note Filing of Appeal Bond on Appearance Docket.
    Tlie notation of the filing of an appeal bond on the appearance docket is not jurisdictional, and when an appeal bond is given within the statutory period a failure to make a notation thereof on the appearance docket at the time it is given does not affect the appeal.
    2. Proceedings in Mandamus May be Reviewed on Error Only.
    The amendment of the constitution of Ohio, Art. 4, Sec. 6, providing for the organization and jurisdiction of the court of appeals, has excluded a statutory proceeding such as mandamus from the cases which can be reviewed in the court of appeals on appeal, and when such review is desired it must be had by error proceedings.
    [Syllabus by the court.]
    Appeal.
    
      Clinton Egbert, for plaintiff.
    
      B. F. Primmer, for defendant.
   JONES (0. B.), J.

This ease is heard on a motion to dismiss the appeal. Two grounds are urged: the first, that the judgment having been entered June 29, 1915, and the appeal bond filed September 29, 1915, the said bond was filed more than thirty days alter the judgment was entered, and See. 12226 G. C. was not complied with and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

The transcript filed with the papers herein shows that the appeal bond was given June 30, 1915, and then approved by the clerk in accordance with the statute, but it appears that the clerk failed to note the giving of this bond upon the appearance docket or mark it as having been filed until September 29, 1915. The jurisdictional requirement of Sec. 12226 is that the undertaking should be given, and that appears to have been done in this case. Of course it should be noted upon the appearance docket at the same time it is given, but' such notation does not appear to be jurisdictional.

The second ground urged for dismissal is that under the terms of Sec. 6, Art. 4, of the constitution as amended, this case is not appealable, as it is not equitable in its nature and is not a chancery ease.

Prior to the amendment of the constitution cases in mandamus were appealable to the circuit court. Dutton v. Hanover, 42 Ohio St. 215, and State v. Philbrick, 69 Ohio St. 283 [69 N. E. 439], The statute would still seem to permit such an appeal, if it alone were to be considered; but the amendment to the Constitution providing for the organization and jurisdiction of the court of appeals has excluded a statutory proceeding such as mandamus from the cases which can be reviewed in the court of appeals, and such review when desired must therefore be had by error proceedings.

The motion to dismiss will be granted.

Jones (E. H.) and Gorman, JJ., concur.