Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0309-01.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. 365
    In re CHARGES AGAINST QUIMBY
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin County
    Decided Feb. 20, 1924.
    85. APPEAL — Constitutional amendment abolishing appeal does not deprive Common Pleas courts of jurisdiction in disbarment.
    Attorneys — Timothy S. Hogan, Thomas M. Sherman and Frank M. Raymund, Columbus, for respondent Quimby; Oscar W. Newman, C. J. Pretzman and E. L. Weinland, Columbus, on behalf of committee preferring charges.
   BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action of disbarment in the Common Pleas against H. Anna Quimby, respondent. The case was heard by five judges of the Common Pleas, who rendered judgment against respondent. Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals by respondent, contending that the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Common Pleas in disbarment cases is* unconstitutional for the reason that the statute conferring such jurisdiction on the Common Pleas has uniformly been coupled with the right of appeal and when the constitutional amendments abolish the right of appeal in such cases, the entire jurisdiction of the Common Pleas was repealed by implication. Held:

It is conceded that the statute was valid before the constitutional amendment. The amendment repealed and superseded the appeal provision of that statute. The purpose of the framers of the amendment was to limit the right of appeal to chancery cases and to establish proceedings in error as the exclusive method of review in all other cases. This was on the theory that a review of error proceedings would be equally if not more beneficial than a re-trial by way of appeal. It Was not the intention of the legislature to disturb the original jurisdiction of the Common Pleas.

The question is one of importance because it involves not only the disbarment statute but many others conferring jurisdiction upon the Common Pleas. In 91 OS. 4i07 the appeal provision in the conservancy statute was held invalid but the court later sustained the statute as to the jurisdiction of the conservancy court. Judgment affirmed.