Case ID: ohio-law-abs_17/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By HAMILTON, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MICHAELSON et v NATHAN
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No 4508.
    Decided Feb 5, 1934
    
      R. T. Dickerson, Cincinnati, for appellants.
    Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx & Ginler, Cincinnati, for appellee.
   OPINION

By HAMILTON, PJ.

The first proposition that confronts the court is one of jurisdiction. While no motion was filed to dismiss the appeal for ■want of jurisdiction, the question so squarely presents itself to the court that we do not feel that the point can be passed, since the court must determine its own jurisdiction, and the precedent should not be established to the effect that an attachment is appealable.

The jurisdiction of the Court of.Appeals on appeals is defined in the Constitution and is limited to the trial on appeal of chancery cases. Article IV, 86. Attachment is purely a statutory remedy, and cannot be considered to have any chancery feature.

The appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

However, we have examined the case on the merits, and if the case were properly here, we would have to find on the evidence aduced, as did the trial court, that the funds were the funds of Adolph Michael-son. The record clearly shows that when the account was opened by Michaelson as •‘Adolph Michaelson, Agent”, at the same time there was a like amount transferred from his indivdual account. If the daughters furnished him any moneys, they were all carried in this account designated “Agent”. The record shows that oyer $2,000.00 was transferred by Michaelson from his personal account to his account as “Agent”, and his personal business transactions. were carried on through this account as agent. It is conclusively shown that more money was transferred from his personal account to his account as agent than was necessary to discharge the Nathan judgment. We rest our decision, however, on the jurisdiction question and the appeal is dismissed.

GUSHING and ROSS, JJ, concur.