Mack v. Bonner
Mack v. Bonner
Opinion of the Court
The only question presented by the motion [367 in the district court, on which this case was reserved, is whether the statute regulating appeals to the district court, passed March 23, 1852, authorized an appeal in a case of this kind. The statute provides for appeals from all final judgments in civil cases at law, decrees in chancery, and interlocutory decrees dissolving injunctions rendered by the court of common pleas, in which that court had original jurisdiction. If, therefore, a petition in partition be a civil cause, in which the court of common pleas had original jurisdiction, the right of appeal existed. A petition for partition is neither a suit in chancery, nor a common-law action, but a civil suit or proceeding
It is urged on behalf of the motion, that the statute authorizing appeals from the common pleas to the Supreme Court, under the former constitution of the state, was not substantially different from the present statute on that subject; and that according to the ad-368] judications of the ^Supreme Court, the right of appeal was limited to actions at law and suits in chancery, and did not extend to any of the remedies prescribed by statute; and by an express decision on the question, in the case of Hay v. Hites, 11 Ohio, 254, did not extend to petitions in partition. The decisions of the Supreme Court, under the former constitution, upon this subject, gave an interpretation to a different statute from that now under consideration, and therefore, although analogous, is not strictly binding in this case. On account of the condition of the business in the Supreme Court, and the peculiar organization of the judiciary under that constitution, a construction was given to the statute authorizing appeals fully as strict and rigid as would be justifiable in case of penal enactments. We have been disposed to view this subject somewhat differently, and have, therefore, treated the statute authorizing appeals, as remedial in its nature, and by the ordinary and settled rules of construction, as being entitled to a liberal interpretation. This is the view expressed upon the subject in the case of
The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled, and the cause remanded to the district court.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Martin M. Mack v. William D. Bonner
- Status
- Published