Opinion
No. 39043
Decided March 17, 1965.
Mandamus — To require separate findings of fact and conclusions of law — Section 2315.221, Revised Code — Writ denied, when — Right to appeal.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Logan County.
To determine properly the issue in the present case, it is necessary to examine the background of litigation from which it arose.
In October 1960, appellant brought an action against the city of Bellefontaine, contesting the validity of a zoning ordinance. The case was decided against appellant. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and an appeal was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. An appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Appellant then filed a petition to vacate the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, under the provisions of Section 2325.01, Revised Code, alleging that such judgment had been obtained by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. A motion was filed by the defendant to strike the petition as a sham. The trial court found that the issue of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation had been adjudicated previously in the appeal and dismissed the petition to vacate. Appellant then filed a motion for findings of fact separate from conclusions of law under the provisions of Section 2315.221, Revised Code. This motion was overruled.
The present action in mandamus was instituted in the Court of Appeals, in which appellant seeks an order to compel the trial judge in the case involving the petition to vacate to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court denied the writ of mandamus at the conclusion of appellant's opening statement.
The appellant thereupon prosecuted the present appeal as of right to this court.
Mr. Harold C. Foreman, in propria persona. Mr. Robert E. Dunlap, prosecuting attorney, for appellees.
If there was any error in refusing to make these findings of fact and conclusions of law, that contention should have been made on appeal from the original judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.