Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_10/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hale, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ATTACHMENT — APPEAL.
    [Cuyahoga Circuit Court,
    November 20, 1899.]
    Caldwell, Hale and Marvin, JJ.
    Charles M. Beardsley v. J. W. Zacharias & Co.
    1. Appeal from Order of Justice Dissolving Attachment.
    The act 93 O. U., 141, provides for an appeal from the order of a justice of the peace dissolving an attachment, to the court of common pleas, and for the hearing in that court as an original question.
    '2. No Motion for New Trial Authorized.
    But, after an order is made by the common pleas, upon the motion, and transmitted to the justice, the jurisdiction of the common pleas ends. That court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial or vacate its former order.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county.
    
      James F, Walsh, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Olds & Willett, for defendant in error.
   Hale, J.

The section, 93 O. L., 141, provides for an appeal from an order of a justice of the peace dissolving an attachment to the court of common pleas, and for the hearing in the court, or by a judge of that' court, as an original question.

After the order of the court or judge, made upon the motion and transmitted, with the order and papers, to the justice, the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas ends. That court then has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial or vacate its former order. Indeed, no motion for a new trial is authorized by this proceeding.

It, there I ore, follows that the order of the court of common pleas made on May 22, 1899, and on June 5, 1899, after the papers had been transmitted back to the justice, were null and void, and such orders are reversed and set aside.