State ex rel. Gelman v. Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County, 36682
| Decision Date | 22 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 36682,36682 |
| Citation | 173 N.E.2d 344,15 O.O.2d 132,172 Ohio St. 73 |
| Parties | , 15 O.O.2d 132 STATE ex rel. GELMAN, Appellant, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LORAIN COUNTY, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
George Pillersdorf, Cleveland, Harry J. Dworkin and Meyer Gordon, Lorain, for appellant.
Dan K. Cook, Lorain, for appellee.
That the respondent court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, to wit, a divorce action, is without question.
The issue presented here by relatrix is the jurisdiction of the respondent court in the divorce action over the person of relatrix. This question was originally presented by relatrix and adjudicated by the respondent court in its order overruling the motion by relatrix to quash the service of summons in the divorce action. An appeal from that order was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the order was not a final appealable order, and no further appeal was taken.
An action in prohibition may not be employed to correct an alleged error of a trial court in its ruling on jurisdiction over a party defendant, where jurisdiction of the subject matter is readily apparent (State ex rel. Hanna v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 144 Ohio St. 272, 58 N.E.2d 669), or to prevent an erroneous judgment (State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke County, 153 Ohio St. 64, 90 N.E.2d 598).
The Court of Appeals was not in error in denying the writ, and its judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Capital One Bank NA v. Karner
...See also, State ex rel. Ruessman v Flanagan (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 464, 805 N.E,2d 31; and State ex rel. Gelman v. Lorain Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1961), 172 Ohio St. 73, 173 N.E.2d 344.2 Thus, lack of personal jurisdiction does not provide a basis for issuing an extraordinary writ. {¶ 24......
-
State ex rel. Connor v. McGough, 89-443
...Court (1963), 175 Ohio St. 355, 25 O.O.2d 254, 194 N.E.2d 849 (defective affidavit charging crime); State, ex rel. Gelman, v. Court (1961), 172 Ohio St. 73, 15 O.O.2d 132, 173 N.E.2d 344 (alleged defective service of process); State, ex rel. Hanna, v. Court (1944), 144 Ohio St. 272, 29 O.O.......
-
State ex rel. Richard Davet v. Judge Raymond L. Pianka, Case
...of a trial court in its ruling on jurisdiction over a party defendant, where jurisdiction of the subject matter is readily apparent." 172 Ohio St. at 74. recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified the narrow circumstances under which prohibition might lie for lack of personal jurisdictio......
-
State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar
... ... POLCAR, Judge, et al. * ... Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga ... Miller v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 143 Ohio St. 68, 54 ... State ex rel. Gelman v. Common Pleas Court, 172 Ohio St. 70, 173 ... ...