Court Opinion

ID: 9813960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:27:11.508451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:55.789367
License: Public Domain

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
No. 512.
By THE COURT:
We have an application for rehearing, which upon a technical interpretation of our rules would not be considered, because at present we have no provision for the reconsideration of an opinion on an application for rehearing. Nickerson v. Nickerson, 85 Oh Ap 372.
We accept the explanation for the delay made by one of counsel for defendant and recognize it as valid.
We are not irrevocably committed to the dismissal of all applications for rehearing and if it clearly appears that we have overlooked something suggested on the original hearing, or have clearly made an improper decision, we will entertain the application.
It is urged on the application that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief to the plaintiff-appellee in that it invoked equity powers. This jurisdictional question was not urged in the former assignment of errors and, therefore, was not properly before us for determination. However, we observe that this cause did not go to trial on the divorce and alimony aspects alone but upon a second cause of action which was equitable in its nature. The trial court being a court of general jurisdiction had power to consider and act upon the equitable cause of action.
*90We find no sufficient support for the ground assigned in the application for rehearing to require that it be granted. It will, therefore, be denied.
MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.