Opinion of the Court. rights. Such exercise affords no basis for an inference of malice or want of probable cause, as grounds of action." There is another road leading to the same end; and it is quite as conclusive as the first. Not only was the suing out of a writ of error regarded in this state before the Code, and is yet in other states, as not a continuation of the suit to which it relates, but as the commencement of a new proceeding to review and set aside the judgment of the court below, Lessee of Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Ohio, 337; 2 Cyc., 510, but in the adoption of the code of civil procedure, writs of error and certiorari to reverse, vacate or modify judgments or final orders in civil cases were abolished; General Code, Section 12282; yet the distinction between the original action and the proceeding to reverse, vacate or modify was retained in the statute. The Code provides that: "The proceedings to obtain such reversal, vacation or modification shall be by petition in error," and that “a summons shall issue and be served or publication made, as in the commencement of an action." General Code, Section 12259. Of course the requirement to file a petition and that summons must be issued and served or publication made, as in the commencement of an action, would be unnecessary and discordant, if the error proceeding were merely a continuation and transplanting of the original action in the reviewing court. A palpable illustration of this view is found in Charles v. Fawley et al., 71 where the distinction is clearly drawn between a Ohio St., 50, 54, Opinion of the Court. proceeding in error and a statutory appeal, by which in certain cases the original case is brought up to the superior court for review de novo, upon the facts and the law, merely by giving notice to the adverse party and giving a bond, in the trial court. Besides, the very definition of a judgment, as given in the Code, seems to be decisive of the contention here: "A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in action." General Code, Section 11582. It is one of the admitted facts in this case that a judgment was rendered in the original case in favor of the defendant, plaintiff in error here, upon the verdict of the jury in his favor. We therefore hold that there was a legal termination in his favor of the action brought against the plaintiff, more than one year before the commencement of this action, whereby the plaintiff's cause of action became barred by the statute of limitations. The judgment of the circuit court affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas is Affirmed. SPEAR, SHAUCK, JOHNSON and O'HARA, JJ., concur. DONAHUE, J., having sat in the case in the circuit court, did not participate. Opinion of the Court. THE STATE, EX REL. BUEL, v. JOYCE ET AL., DEPUTY STATE SUPERVISORS, ETC. Decision of secretary of state-Acting as supervisor of elections is final, when-Sections 5005, 5006 and 5007, General Code. The decision of the secretary of state, acting as state supervisor of elections, upon written objections to certificates of nomination and nomination papers or upon other questions arising in the course of the nomination of candidates, as provided in Sections 5005, 5006 and 5007, General Code, is final. (Decided November 5, 1912.) MOTION for leave to file petition in mandamus. Under the provisions of Section 5005, General Code, objections were filed with the deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections of Franklin county, to certain certificates of nomination and nomination papers. That board being unable to agree, the matter in controversy was submitted, under the provisions of Section 5007, to the secretary of state acting as state supervisor of elections, and his decision not being satisfactory to the relator and those whom he represents, this application for leave to file a petition in mandamus is made to this court. Mr. Thomas H. Clark; Mr. Karl T. Webber and Mr. R. W. McCoy, for the motion. Mr. George B. Okey and Mr. J. E. Todd, contra. BY THE COurt. The sections of the election laws which are now numbered Sections 5005, 5006 Opinion of the Court. and 5007, General Code, have been under consideration by this court several times; and it has been uniformly held that the decision of the secretary of state, when acting in the capacity of state supervisor of elections, upon written objections to certificates of nomination and nomination papers or upon other questions arising in the course of nomination of candidates, is final. Chapman v. Miller, 52 Ohio St., 166; Randall v. State, ex rel., 64 Ohio St., 57; State, ex rel., v. Stewart, 71 Ohio St., 55. The statute so declares; and as at present advised, this court is of the opinion that those matters are not per se the subject of judicial cognizance, but are matters for political regulation and well within the legislative power. This being an application for leave to file a petition in mandamus, the right to have the writ issue should clearly appear. Therefore, without entertaining an opinion as to the correctness of the ruling by the secretary of state, but regarding this application merely as presenting the question of the jurisdiction of this court to review such ruling, Leave is refused. DAVIS, C. J., SHAUCK, JOHNSON, DONAHUE and O'HARA, JJ., concur. SPEAR, J., not participating. Opinion of the Court. STATE OF OHIO V. GASKINS. STATE OF OHIO 7. HABERCORN. Leave of prosecuting attorney or attorney general-To file petition in error-Not required by act of February 28, 1906-Repealing Section 7306a, Revised Statutes-Section 13764, General Code. The act of February 28, 1906 (98 O. L., 33), repealing Section 7306a, Revised Statutes, and substituting Section 13764, General Code, does not require that leave of this court shall be obtained by the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general to file the petition in error which the section authorizes. (No. 7732-Decided November 12, 1912.) (No. 7745-Decided November 12, 1912.) MOTION for leave to file petition in error to the Circuit Court of Clermont county. MOTION by defendant to strike petition in error from the files in cause No. 13834 on the general docket. Facts are stated in the opinion. No. 7732. Mr. D. W. Murphy, for the motion. Mr. Charles C. Kearns; Mr. Eli H. Speidel; Mr. O. P. Griffiths and Mr. C. B. Nichols, contra. No. 7745. Mr. J. C. Malone, for the motion. Mr. L. E. Laybourne; Mr. J. A. White and Mr. George W. Crabbe, contra. BY THE COURT. The motion lastly entitled is a type of several motions which have been filed recently to dismiss petitions in error in cases on the general docket. In all the cases on the general docket, in the court of first resort an accused person had been convicted of an offense against |