Case Name: FOREST CITY INVEST. CO. v. HAAS
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-12
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 55
Docket Number: No. 5161
Parties: FOREST CITY INVEST. CO. v. HAAS
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 55–55

Head Matter:
No. 27
FOREST CITY INVEST. CO. v. HAAS
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
No. 5161.
Decided Nov. 12, 1923
85. APPEAL — Appeal can be prosecuted only from final order — Appointment of receiver during pendency of action is not a final order.
Attorneys — Friebolin & Byers, Cleveland, for the Forest City Investment Co.; Kerruish, Kerruish, Hartshorn & Spooner, Cleveland, for Haas.

Opinion:
VICKERY, P. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Rosa Haas brought an action in Cuyahoga Common Pleas against the Forest City Investment Company, for an accounting, appointment of a receiver and other equitable relief. A motion was made by her for the' appointment of a receiver pending litigation, and one was appointed. The defendant company appealed from this ' decision. A motion was filed by Haas to dismiss the appeal In sustaining .this motion the Court of Appeals held:
1. An appeal can be prosecuted only from the final court order wh'ch involves a complete determination of the case.
2. The action of the trial court or judge in granting a receiver during a pending action does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties, and consequently such an order is not a final order, and moreover does not dispose of the entire ease or involve its merits in any way.