153 N.E.2d 203 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1957
Appeals have been taken on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Peas Court of Clark County. The two appeals are in companion cases, and one opinion will suffice.
The defendants were indicted for a violation of Section
The overruling of a plea in abatement is not a final order from which an appeal may be prosecuted. Bogard v. State, 9 Ohio Law Abs., 436; Whitlock v. State, 21 Ohio Law Abs., 393 (appeal dismissed by Supreme Court, State v. Whitelock, *31
Section
Section
"An order affecting a substantial right in an action which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment * * * is a final order which may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial."
In determining whether the orders appealed from are appealable orders, two criteria are involved: (1) The order must affect a substantial right, and (2) it must determine the action and prevent a judgment in favor of the party seeking review. A "substantial right" is a "legal right" within the meaning of this section. The rulings of the trial court on the pleas in abatement did not determine the action or prevent a judgment.
The same principle of law is applicable to the appeal in No. 546 with respect to the right of appeal from an order overruling the motion to dismiss. In Hall v. Kroger Grocery Baking Co.,
"An order of a trial court overruling a motion to dismiss a petition does not determine the action or prevent final judgment and is not a reviewable final order."
See 2 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 631, Section 56.
Inasmuch as Section
The appeals not being taken from an appealable order, it *32 will be unnecessary to pass on the questions raised by the pleas in abatement and the motion to dismiss.
This court sua sponte dismisses the appeals.
Appeals dismissed.
HORNBECK, P. J., and CRAWFORD, J., concur.