Heffner v. Moyst

40 Ohio St. (N.S.) 112
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1883·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

1. After overruling a motion to set aside a verdict the court made a journal entry allowing thirty days after term to prepare and present for allowance a bill of exceptions. No journal entry showed that such bill was ever prepared, presented, allowed or ordered to be made a part of the record. Meld: A reviewing court cannot consider a paper claimed to be said bill of exceptions.

2. Where defendants, sued as joint tort feasors, answer separately: H., one of them, averring that he (with persons not made defendants) committed the act complained of, that it was lawful and that his co-defendants had no part in it, it was not error to the prejudice of H. to overrule his motion for a new trial while sustaining a separate motion by the other defendants to set aside the verdict as to them.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Heffner v. Moyst, 40 Ohio St. (N.S.) 112 (Ohio 1883).

40 Ohio St. (N.S.) 112 (Heffner v. Moyst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.