History
  • No items yet
midpage
Whitlock v. State
21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393
Ohio Ct. App.
1936
Check Treatment

*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.

Case Details

Case Name: Whitlock v. State
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 13, 1936
Citation: 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393
Docket Number: No 15395
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.