Hoefler & Stoecklein Co. v. Martin

91 N.E.2d 704, 87 Ohio App. 51, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 32, 42 Ohio Op. 285, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 587
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided August 13, 1949·No. 2050·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motions of plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that defendants-appellants failed to file a bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief within the time required by supplement to Rule VII of the Courts of. Appeals.

On May 24, 1949, this court dismissed the appeal on questions of law and fact and ordered the case retained for hearing on questions of law, and further-ordered that defendants-appellants be required to file their bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief within the time • prescribed by supplement to Rule VII.

The period of time prescribed in supplement to Rule VII having expired, and no bill of exceptions, assignment of errors and brief having been filed, the motion to dismiss the appeal is .sustained.

Motion sustained.

Miller, P. J., Hornbbck and Wiseman, JJ., concur..

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

Hoefler & Stoecklein Co. v. Martin, 91 N.E.2d 704, 87 Ohio App. 51, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 32, 42 Ohio Op. 285, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 587 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

91 N.E.2d 704 (Hoefler & Stoecklein Co. v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.