Whitlock v. State , 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393 ( 1936 )


Menu:
  • *394OPINION

    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.

Document Info

Docket Number: No 15395

Citation Numbers: 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393

Judges: Crow, Guernsey, Klinger

Filed Date: 4/13/1936

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/20/2022