Case Name: WHITLOCK et v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1936-04-13
Citations: 21 Ohio Law Abs. 393
Docket Number: No 15395
Parties: WHITLOCK et v STATE
Judges: CROW and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 21
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
WHITLOCK et v STATE
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No 15395.
Decided April 13, 1936
Payer, Corrigan, Cook & . Pilliod, Cleveland, for appellants.
Frank T. Cullitan, Prosecuting Attorney, Cleveland, for appellee. ■

Opinion:
OPINION
By KLINGER, PJ.
In the opinion of this court the overruling of a plea in abatement is not a final order under this section of the statutes. §13459-1 GC; §11582 GC.
See: 12 Ohio Jurisprudence, 741.
Wagner v State, 42 Oh St, 537.
Inskeep v State, 35 Oh St 482.
Inskeep v State, 36 Oh St 145.
Bogart v State, 9 Abs, 436.
This court, sitting in Wood County, in the case of State v James, held that a motion overruling a plea in abatement was not a final order from which error could be prosecuted and the note in the Bogart case in 9 Abs, refers to this ruling by this court.
The appeal and petition in error will be dismissed at the cost of the appellants.
CROW and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur.