Gates v. McDonald

Ohio Court of Appeals

Gates v. McDonald

90 N.E.2d 431, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 472, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 838

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 1949

DocketNo. 4316

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 N.E.2d 431 (Gates v. McDonald) 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

Gates v. McDonald, 90 N.E.2d 431, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 472, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

[473]*473opinion

By THE COURT.

Submitted upon motion by the defendant-appellee for an order of dismissal for the reason that the appellant has failed to file assignments of error and briefs within the time provided by Rule VII, The plaintiff-appellant has also submitted a motion for leave to file the same out of rule. The only reason assigned by counsel for the appellant for the-failure to comply with the rule is that they were of the opinion that an extension of time was granted to them in two-entries prepared by counsel for the appellee granting an extension of time in which to cure certain objections to the Bill of Exceptions and for the approval of the same by the-trial court. This error on the part of counsel does not constitute good cause for failure to comply with the rule. Rule VII definitely provides that the time starts to run upon the filing of the notice of appeal. Should counsel have been unable to comply with the rule because of the delay in the-approval of the Bill of Exceptions by the trial court, it was incumbent upon them to secure an extension of time. This, court has consistently required strict compliance with the rule.

The motion of the appellee will be sustained, and that of the appellant overruled.

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

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

[473]*473opinion

By THE COURT.

Submitted upon motion by the defendant-appellee for an order of dismissal for the reason that the appellant has failed to file assignments of error and briefs within the time provided by Rule VII, The plaintiff-appellant has also submitted a motion for leave to file the same out of rule. The only reason assigned by counsel for the appellant for the-failure to comply with the rule is that they were of the opinion that an extension of time was granted to them in two-entries prepared by counsel for the appellee granting an extension of time in which to cure certain objections to the Bill of Exceptions and for the approval of the same by the-trial court. This error on the part of counsel does not constitute good cause for failure to comply with the rule. Rule VII definitely provides that the time starts to run upon the filing of the notice of appeal. Should counsel have been unable to comply with the rule because of the delay in the-approval of the Bill of Exceptions by the trial court, it was incumbent upon them to secure an extension of time. This, court has consistently required strict compliance with the rule.

The motion of the appellee will be sustained, and that of the appellant overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.E.2d 431, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 472, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-mcdonald-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack