Beebe v. State ex rel. Starr Piano Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Beebe v. State ex rel. Starr Piano Co.

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1922

DocketNo. 17524

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10 (Beebe v. State ex rel. Starr Piano Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beebe v. State ex rel. Starr Piano Co., 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10 (Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MATTHIAS, J.:

1. Statutes prescribing the method of the preparation and prosecutions of proceedings in ex'ror are remedial in character and should be liberally construed with a view to securing and safeguarding the right of a party to have an adverse judgment reviewed.

2. It is the duty of the trial judge to allow and sign a bill of exceptions when duly presented, if the same be correct; it is likewise his duty to correct errors therein, and upon refusal so to do a writ of mandamus may issue.

3. If the trial judge from memory or from mem^ oranda in his-possesion cannot make such correction, it is his duty to refresh his memory froxn available information including that which may be obtained from the stenographer who has shorthand notes of the testimony and other proceedings of the trial, even though such stenographer was not an official reporter appointed by the court, but was employed therein by the party prevailing in the suit. Section 13410, General Code, has no application to such proceeding.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones and Clark, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MATTHIAS, J.:

1. Statutes prescribing the method of the preparation and prosecutions of proceedings in ex'ror are remedial in character and should be liberally construed with a view to securing and safeguarding the right of a party to have an adverse judgment reviewed.

2. It is the duty of the trial judge to allow and sign a bill of exceptions when duly presented, if the same be correct; it is likewise his duty to correct errors therein, and upon refusal so to do a writ of mandamus may issue.

3. If the trial judge from memory or from mem^ oranda in his-possesion cannot make such correction, it is his duty to refresh his memory froxn available information including that which may be obtained from the stenographer who has shorthand notes of the testimony and other proceedings of the trial, even though such stenographer was not an official reporter appointed by the court, but was employed therein by the party prevailing in the suit. Section 13410, General Code, has no application to such proceeding.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones and Clark, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beebe-v-state-ex-rel-starr-piano-co-ohio-1922.