Case Name: Croll et al. v. Village of Franklin et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1880-01
Citations: 36 Ohio St. 316
Docket Number: 
Parties: Croll et al. v. Village of Franklin et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 36
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
Croll et al. v. Village of Franklin et al.
The plaintiffs, by their original action, sought to enjoin proceedings by the village council-to complete the extension of the corporate limits of the village. On final hearing in the district court the petition was dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs. To reverse this judgment, a petition in error is now pending in this court, and the plaintiffs now move for an order staying the execution of the judgment of the court below during the pendency of the proceeding in error. Held, where the relief desired, during the pendency of a proceeding in error, is an order to stay further action in the proceedings, which it is the object of the original action to enjoin, such relief should be sought under section 5573 of the Revised Statutes.
Motion for a writ of supersedeas, or an order staying tbe -execution of tbe judgment of tbe District Court.
Tbis was an action to enjoin the village authorities of tbe village of Franklin, in Warren county, from taking any steps to carry into effect certain proceedings for the extension of tbe corporate limits of tbe village, upon the’ ground that .such proceedings were void. Tbe plaintiffs were resident taxpayers of the territory sought to be annexed. Issue was joined by tbe village on tbe allegations stated in tbe petition, tending to show the invalidity of said proceedings, and upon final hearing in the district court, to which the cause had been appealed, the action was dismissed at the costs of the plaintiffs. To- reverse this judgment a petition in error has been filed in this court, and the plaintiffs now move for a writ 6f supersedeas, of the execution of the judgment below until the cause in error is finally heal’d; and in case such writ is refused, they pray for an order staying the execution of- such judgment until final disposition of the case in error.
Durbin TVa/rd, for- the motion.
A. O. MeBwrney, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Neither a writ of supersedeas, nor an order staying the execution of the judgment below, would afford the plaintiffs the relief desired. The only judgment rendered was one dismissing the action, and for costs against the plaintiffs. An order staying the execution of such judgment would not operate to restrain the village authorities from going forward with the proceedings sought to be enjoined. Where the relief desired during the pendency of the proceedings in error is an order to stay further action in the proceedings, which, by the original action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin, such relief should be sought under section 5573 of the revised statutes.
Motion denied.