Crawford v. Bach

Ohio Court of Appeals

Crawford v. Bach

101 N.E.2d 143, 60 Ohio Law. Abs. 179

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 1950

DocketNo. 4500

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 N.E.2d 143 (Crawford v. Bach) 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

Crawford v. Bach, 101 N.E.2d 143, 60 Ohio Law. Abs. 179 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal on law and fact for, the reason that the appeal bond was not signed within 20 days after the filing of the entry overruling the motion for a new trial. The record discloses that the motion was overruled on July 25, 1950, and the bond was filed on August 15, 1950. It was therefore not filed within the 20 days as required by §12223-6 GC. The motion will be sustained but the case will be retained for determination on questions of law as required by §11564 and §12223-22 GC. The appellant will be granted leave to file bill of exceptions, assignment [180]*180of errors and brief within the time allowed by Supplement to Rule VII of the Court.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal on law and fact for, the reason that the appeal bond was not signed within 20 days after the filing of the entry overruling the motion for a new trial. The record discloses that the motion was overruled on July 25, 1950, and the bond was filed on August 15, 1950. It was therefore not filed within the 20 days as required by §12223-6 GC. The motion will be sustained but the case will be retained for determination on questions of law as required by §11564 and §12223-22 GC. The appellant will be granted leave to file bill of exceptions, assignment [180]*180of errors and brief within the time allowed by Supplement to Rule VII of the Court.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.E.2d 143, 60 Ohio Law. Abs. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-bach-ohioctapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack