Carran v. Soline Oil Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Carran v. Soline Oil Co.

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 872

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 8, 1928

DocketNo. 8791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 5 (Carran v. Soline Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carran v. Soline Oil Co., 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 872 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

We cannot review the evidence because it is not here in any form, by bill of exceptions or otherwise. Hence it is impossible to determine whether the court below was guilty of abuse of sound discretion, for that could only be determined with the evidence upon which it acted before us. There is however a more important defect than this, which is apparent from the record. Upon a motion or petition to vacate a judgment, during the term or after the term, its essential foundation is some ground enumerated in the statue and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, first, to hear and determine the question as to whether the statutory ground for motion exists.

Under the decision by McIlvaine, C. J., in Watson et al vs Paine, 25 O. S. 340, the court has not ended its duty by hearing and determining whether the motion is supported by a ground enumerated in the statue. If it is found that a legal ground exists, to suspend or vacate the judgment, then it becomes .the next duty of the court to hear and determine the question as to whether there is a valid defense and this may be determined by proper pleadings and by evidence of a competent nature which sheds legal light upon this issue. If the proceedings to vacate are by motion, an answer to the original petition should be tendered or filed so that it would become a document in the hands of the court assisting in the determination as to whether there was a valid defense. If the proceeding is by petition, and the matters of defense are set forth in such a way as to become issuable, then it might be that the question could be decided by reply or demurrer but in any event the issues when made up should be tried as in other cases.

Ralston et al vs Wells, 49 O. S. 298; Follett vs Alexander et al, 58 O. S. 202.

In an opinion rendered by this court of Appeals, Feb. 4, 1913 Niman, J., these principles annunciated here were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 37 O. S. 518.

Vickery and Levine JJ., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, J.

We cannot review the evidence because it is not here in any form, by bill of exceptions or otherwise. Hence it is impossible to determine whether the court below was guilty of abuse of sound discretion, for that could only be determined with the evidence upon which it acted before us. There is however a more important defect than this, which is apparent from the record. Upon a motion or petition to vacate a judgment, during the term or after the term, its essential foundation is some ground enumerated in the statue and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, first, to hear and determine the question as to whether the statutory ground for motion exists.

Under the decision by McIlvaine, C. J., in Watson et al vs Paine, 25 O. S. 340, the court has not ended its duty by hearing and determining whether the motion is supported by a ground enumerated in the statue. If it is found that a legal ground exists, to suspend or vacate the judgment, then it becomes .the next duty of the court to hear and determine the question as to whether there is a valid defense and this may be determined by proper pleadings and by evidence of a competent nature which sheds legal light upon this issue. If the proceedings to vacate are by motion, an answer to the original petition should be tendered or filed so that it would become a document in the hands of the court assisting in the determination as to whether there was a valid defense. If the proceeding is by petition, and the matters of defense are set forth in such a way as to become issuable, then it might be that the question could be decided by reply or demurrer but in any event the issues when made up should be tried as in other cases.

Ralston et al vs Wells, 49 O. S. 298; Follett vs Alexander et al, 58 O. S. 202.

In an opinion rendered by this court of Appeals, Feb. 4, 1913 Niman, J., these principles annunciated here were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 37 O. S. 518.

Vickery and Levine JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carran-v-soline-oil-co-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack