Hoffman Candy Co. v. Department of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hoffman Candy Co. v. Department of Liquor Control

91 N.E.2d 804, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 257, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 797

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1949

DocketNo. 4357

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 N.E.2d 804 (Hoffman Candy Co. v. Department of Liquor Control) 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

Hoffman Candy Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 91 N.E.2d 804, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 257, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 797 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the defendants-appellants have failed to file a bill of exceptions as required by §11564 GC. Counsel for the appellants admit that a bill of exceptions has not been filed in compliance with §11564 GC, but urges that the same has no application; that the Code has application only when the decision is not entered on the record, which is not the fact in the instant case; that on the contrary the decision of the trial court appears on the record, the same being the basis of this appeal. The failure to file a bill of exceptions within the time fixed by law does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the case, but does incapacitate the court to construe the contents of the bill of exceptions for any purpose. Where it is claimed that the errors complained of appear from the pleadings and transcript of docket and journal entries, no bill of exceptions need be filed. Hulett v. Hulett, 18 Abs 63. [258]*258Any error disclosed by the pleadings may be reviewed by the appellate court without the necessity of a bill of exceptions. Hughes v. Roberts. 18 Abs 62.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

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.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the defendants-appellants have failed to file a bill of exceptions as required by §11564 GC. Counsel for the appellants admit that a bill of exceptions has not been filed in compliance with §11564 GC, but urges that the same has no application; that the Code has application only when the decision is not entered on the record, which is not the fact in the instant case; that on the contrary the decision of the trial court appears on the record, the same being the basis of this appeal. The failure to file a bill of exceptions within the time fixed by law does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the case, but does incapacitate the court to construe the contents of the bill of exceptions for any purpose. Where it is claimed that the errors complained of appear from the pleadings and transcript of docket and journal entries, no bill of exceptions need be filed. Hulett v. Hulett, 18 Abs 63. [258]*258Any error disclosed by the pleadings may be reviewed by the appellate court without the necessity of a bill of exceptions. Hughes v. Roberts. 18 Abs 62.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E.2d 804, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 257, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-candy-co-v-department-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack