Case Name: The Findlay Rolling Mill Co. et al. v. The National Bank of Commerce
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1897-11-23
Citations: 57 Ohio St. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Findlay Rolling Mill Co. et al. v. The National Bank of Commerce.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 57
Pages: 115–117

Head Matter:
The Findlay Rolling Mill Co. et al. v. The National Bank of Commerce.
Jurisdiction of circuit court — To reverse common pleas — Order discharging an attachment — Order made in chambers.
The provisions of the Revised Statutes, (sections 5562 to 55636), confer upon the circuit court, jurisdiction to reverse an order discharging an attachment made by a judge of the court of common pleas at chambers, for the reason that such order is not supported by the evidence.
(Decided November 23, 1897.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.
The National Bank of Commerce, commenced an action in the court of common pleas against the Rolling Mill Company, to recover $38,956.79, on several notes and bills of exchange set out in its petition. The bank also filed' an affidavit for an attachment, on the ground that the defendant had fraudulently contracted the debt for which the suit was brought. The defendant filed its motion for the discharge of the attachment, denying the truth of the affidavit upon which the writ had been issued. The motion came on to be heard before a judge of the court of common pleas, sitting in chambers, and evidence was submitted'supporting and opposing the charge that the debt was fraudulently contracted. The judge made an order discharging the attachment, to which the plaintiff excepted ; and the judge further ordered that twenty days be allowed ; the plaintiff to prepare and file a bill of exceptions and file a petition in error, and said orders were entered upon the journal of the court.
Within the time so allowed, a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence offered on the hearing of the motion to discharge was signed and filed in the court of common pleas, and a petition in error was filed in the circuit court, praying for a reversal of the order discharging the attachment. In the circuit court the order was reversed, and the motion to discharge the attachment was overruled.
The reversal of the judgment of the circuit, court is sought here.
J. A. & E. V. Bope, M. B. Gary and Blackford & Byal, for plaintiffs in error.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, and H. E. Burket, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court :
On behalf of the plaintiff in error, it is insisted that the circuit court has only such jurisdiction in error as is conferred upon it by statute, and that jurisdiction to reverse an order made in chambers by .a judge of the court of common pleas, is not given by the general statute upon the subject, Revised Statutes, section 6709, which provides that " a judgment rendered, or final order made by any court of common pleas, may be reversed, vacated, or modified, by the circuit court, etc."
Counsel for the bank, admitting that the jurisdiction is statutory, insist that it is conferred by the provisions of the statute which relate especially to motions to discharge attachments and proceedings thereon.
It is provided in section 5562, that a motion to discharge an attachment may be heard and decided by the court of. common pleas at any term or regular session thereof, or by any judge thereof in vacation ; and by the general statute relating to orders made out of court, (Revised Statutes, section 4963), the order of discharge made by the judge in chambers must be entered upon the journal of the court.
Section 5563a, provides that a party affected by an "order discharging an attachment, may ñle a petition in error to reverse, vacate or modify the same, as in other eases." The following section provides, that "when an order discharging an order of attachment is made, and a party affected thereby excepts thereto, the court or judge shall fix the number of days, not exceeding thirty, in which such party may hie his petition in error."
From these provisions of the statute, it is manifest that the legislature intended that an order discharging an attachment made by a judge in chambers, should have the same effect, and be subject to the same provisions for review, as though made by the court at a regular session. In the. case of Atwood v. Whipple, 48 Ohio St., 308, it was decided that the circuit court has no jurisdiction to review an order dissolving an injunction made by a judge of the court of common pleas at chambers, but nothing more was held than that the jurisdiction is not conferred by the general provisions of section 6709, there being no such provisions as to motions to dissolve injunctions as those relating to motions to discharge attachments and providing for a review thereof.
With respect to the evidence offered upon the hearing of the motion to discharge, it is sufficient to say that that offered by the bank tended to support the affidavit, upon which the writ had been issued, and we do not consider its weight.
Judgment affirmed.