Dann v. Banks

Ohio Court of Appeals

Dann v. Banks

74 N.E.2d 858, 80 Ohio App. 511, 48 Ohio Law. Abs. 607, 36 Ohio Op. 303, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 733

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1947

Docket3977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 N.E.2d 858 (Dann v. Banks) 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

Dann v. Banks, 74 N.E.2d 858, 80 Ohio App. 511, 48 Ohio Law. Abs. 607, 36 Ohio Op. 303, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion filed by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the so-called “notice of appeal” filed on December 14, 1946, from the files for the reason that said document is a nullity as the same was not filed within twenty days after the rendition of the judgment and final order of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, the said judgment being rendered on November 15, 1946.

An examination of the transcript discloses that on November 15, 1946, the judgment entry was filed and on November 23, 1946, a motion for a new trial was filed and on December 18, 1946, the motion for a new trial was ovérruled.

The notice of appeal having been filed before the overruling of the motion for new trial, the same was prematurely filed. Sec. 12223-7 GC provides that when a motion for new trial is filed by either party within ten days after a journal 'entry of a final order, judgment or decree has been approved by the Court in writing and filed with the clerk for journalization, that the time of perfecting the appeal shall not begin to run until the entry of the new order overruling or sustaining the motion for new trial.

The motion will be sustained, not for the reasons indicated therein, but for the reasons above stated.

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

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

OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion filed by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the so-called “notice of appeal” filed on December 14, 1946, from the files for the reason that said document is a nullity as the same was not filed within twenty days after the rendition of the judgment and final order of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, the said judgment being rendered on November 15, 1946.

An examination of the transcript discloses that on November 15, 1946, the judgment entry was filed and on November 23, 1946, a motion for a new trial was filed and on December 18, 1946, the motion for a new trial was ovérruled.

The notice of appeal having been filed before the overruling of the motion for new trial, the same was prematurely filed. Sec. 12223-7 GC provides that when a motion for new trial is filed by either party within ten days after a journal 'entry of a final order, judgment or decree has been approved by the Court in writing and filed with the clerk for journalization, that the time of perfecting the appeal shall not begin to run until the entry of the new order overruling or sustaining the motion for new trial.

The motion will be sustained, not for the reasons indicated therein, but for the reasons above stated.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.E.2d 858, 80 Ohio App. 511, 48 Ohio Law. Abs. 607, 36 Ohio Op. 303, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dann-v-banks-ohioctapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack