Case ID: ohio-law-abs_42/html/0569-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By ROSS, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHAFFER, Appellant v. SCHNEIDER, Appellee.
    Ohio Appeals, First District, Butler County.
    No. 885.
    Decided November 10, 1944.
    
      Mr. Arnold C. Schaffer, for appellant. .
    Mr. Herbert Walsh, Cincinnati, for appellee.
   OPINION

By ROSS, P. J.

Reference to the pleadings and journal entries of the Municipal Court of Hamilton shows the following incidents to have occurred.

The statement of claim contains statements showing a cause of action in the plaintiff in forcible entry and detain-er, and a cause of action for money only. The pleading contains a prayer for relief under both causes of action. The facts alleged, if true, permitted a recovery; in excess of $100.-00, the judgment in fact being for $139.56.

An answer filed is in effect a general denial.

After trial to the court without a jury, on April 25th, 1944, an opinion of the court was filed and on the same day judgment was entered upon the journal of the court in favor of plaintiff for $139.56, and restitution of premises refused. On April 27th, 1944, motion for a new trial was filed and overruled. No other entry, judgment or final order appears among the papers or in the transcript of docket and journal entries.

1. By virtue of the provisions of §§1579-95 and 1579-113, GC, all laws governing the Court of Common Pleas, especially with reference to motions for new trial, govern the Municipal Court of Hamilton, so far as applicable.

The instant action was one in which the parties would have been entitled- to a trial by jury in the Municipal Court, §10,324, GC, §11,379 GC, it being immaterial whether the case be one within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace or the concurrent jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court by virtue of the statutes conferring jurisdiction upon the Municipal Court of Hamilton. Sections 1579-92, 1579-92A, 10224 to 10447.

2. The rule pronounced in Boedker v Richards, 124 Oh St., 12, is, therefore, applicable.

■■ 3. A motion for a new trial having been made and entered after the last action of the court journalized, no final order or judgment appears from which an appeal on questions of law might be taken to this Court.

4. For this reason, there being no judgment or final order subject to review by this Court, the appeal, not being properly directed to any judgment or final order of the Municipal Court of Hamilton, will be dismissed sua sponte.

ROSS, P. J., HILDEBRANT & MATTHEWS, J. J., concur in the syllabi and opinion.