Case Name: The Forest City Investment Co. v. Rosa Haas
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-04-15
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 276
Docket Number: No. 18214
Parties: The Forest City Investment Co. v. Rosa Haas.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Robinson, J, concurs in the judgment but dissents from the syllabus. Wanamiaker and Allen, JJ., not participating.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
No. 310
No. 18214
The Forest City Investment Co. v. Rosa Haas.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county
1002. RECEIVERS — Appointment of proceeding not a chancery case — Court of Appeals may be reviewed on error — Not on appeal.

Opinion:
JONES, J
1 An order appointing a 'receiver is an order affecting a substantial right mlade in a special proceeding and is a final order within the meaning of Section 12258, General Code. (Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Rd. Co. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St., 1, followed and approved.)
2. A proceeding for the appointment of a receiver does not constitute a chancery case within the purview of Section 6, Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution as amended in 1912. (Thompson v. Denton, 95 Ohio St., 333, overruled.)
3. Such an order is a judgment which may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals on error, but not on appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Robinson, J, concurs in the judgment but dissents from the syllabus. Wanamiaker and Allen, JJ., not participating.