Case Name: Sheldon v. McKnight, Agent of The State of Missouri
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1878-12
Citations: 34 Ohio St. 316
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sheldon v. McKnight, Agent of The State of Missouri.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 34
Pages: 316–319

Head Matter:
Sheldon v. McKnight, Agent of The State of Missouri.
1. There is no authority for taking a bill of exceptions, setting out all the testimony in a proceeding before a judge, under the act of March 23, 1875 (72'Ohio L. 79).
2. An order made by such judge is not reviewable on error.
Motion for leave to file petition in error to reverse the •order of the Hon. E. E. Bingham, a judge of the Court of ■Common Pleas of Eranklin county.
On a requisition of the governor of Missouri, the governor of Ohio issued his warrant to the sheriff of Eranklin ■county, Ohio, commanding him to arrest Stephen Sheldon, the plaintiff in error, and take him before any judge of the-court of common pleas of the district, etc. Sheldon was-accordingly arrested, and taken before the Hon. E. E. Bingham, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county (in which the arrest was made), who, having examined the charge, proceedings, proof offered, etc., adjudged the same sufficient, and ordered the sheriff to deliver up the said Sheldon, as a fugitive from justice, to' James McKnight, the duly authorized agent of the State-of Missouri, to be. returned to the last-named state, to-answer a chai’ge of embezzlement, for which he is there indicted. On the motion of the plaintiff in error, the execution of the order was suspended for the time being,, to enable him to make this application.
A bill of exceptions was taken, setting out copies of all the documentary evidence accompanying the requisition,, ' the warrant, and all the oral testimony offered on the examination.
The object of this proceeding is to obtain a reversal of Judge Bingham’s order.
Charles JE. Burr, Jr., and A. L. Ralston, for Sheldon.
I). K. Watson for McKnight:
The proceedings before Judge E. F. Bingham were had under the act of March 23, 1875 (72 Ohio L. 79), and his action thereunder is not the subject of review by this court. Appellate jurisdiction is only conferred by statute, and there is nothing in this act giving this court such jurisdiction.
Section 513 of the code does not reach this case, for the reason that a final order made or judgment rendered by a common pleas or superior court is one thing, while a finding of a judge, upon a question, by virtue of a special statute, is quite another thing. Matter left to the sound discretion of the court or judge will not be reviewed. 1 Ohio St. 286; 16 Ohio St. 374; 3 Ohio St. 494 ; 9 Ohio-St. 93. ,

Opinion:
Gilmore, J.
The order sought to be reversed was made under authority and in pursuance of " an act to regulate "the practice of the delivery of fugitives from justice, when -demanded by another state or territory" (72 Ohio L. 79), which requires the fugitive, when arrested, to be taken before " any judge of the supreme court, or any judge of the court of common pleas of this state, in whose district or jurisdiction such person so charged may be found, to be •examined on such charge;" and if, on such examination, the proof is adjudged sufficient, such judge is required to •commit, etc.
The questions sought to be made arise on the bill of exceptions, and it would be a sufficient gi'ound for oven'uliDg the motion, to say that the bill of exceptions was taken without authority of law, and, therefore, forms no part of the record before us.
A more radical question, however, arises: Is the order «ought to be reversed one that may be reviewed on petition in error in the supreme court?
The jurisdiction of this court, in proceedings in error, is prescribed by section four, title four, chapter one of the •civil code. 75 Ohio Laws, 804.
The section reads as follows : "A judgment rendered, or final order made by any court, board, or tribunal mentioned 'in the last two sections, may be l'eversed, vacated, or modified by the supreme court for errors appearing on the rec•ord; but the petition in error, in such case, except as to a judgment or final oi'der of the district court, can be filed only by leave of the supi'eme court or a judge thereof."
" The last two sections " referred to are as follows:
" Sec. 2. A judgment rendered, or a final order made, by .a probate coui't, justice of the peace, or any other tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, and inferior :iu jurisdiction to the court of common pleas, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the court of common pleas."
" Sec. 3. A judgment rendered, or final order made by •the court of common pleas, or any superior coui't, may be re versed, vacated, or modified by the district court for errors appearing on the record."
Most clearly the order sought to be reversed was not made by a district court, or a court of common pleas, or any superior court, or by a probate court, a justice of the peace, or any other tribunal or board, and, in our opinion, it was not made by an " officer exercising judicial functions, and inferior in jurisdiction to the court of common pleas," within the meaning of said section two.
Motion overruled.