Howell v. Frost

Ohio Court of Appeals

Howell v. Frost

69 Ohio Law. Abs. 469, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 855

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1954

DocketNo. 5041

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Ohio Law. Abs. 469 (Howell v. Frost) 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

Howell v. Frost, 69 Ohio Law. Abs. 469, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 855 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

[470]*470OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the plaintiff-appellee seeking an order striking the appellant’s reply brief from the- record for the alleged reason that three exhibits are attached to it, which are no part of the bill of exceptions. Counsel for the appellant, in its brief, admits the three exhibits are no part of the bill, but urges they are relevant and material to the issues presented. The law seems to be well established that this Court, in a law appeal, cannot consider matters foreign to the record; that a reviewing Court can only consider evidence contained in the bill of exceptions. Riley v. City Railway Co., 16 Abs 292; Garner v. White, 23 Oh St 192. If these exhibits properly belong in the bill of exceptions, the same should be remanded to the trial court for correction.

The motion will be sustained to the extent that the three exhibits will be ordered stricken.

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

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

[470]*470OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the plaintiff-appellee seeking an order striking the appellant’s reply brief from the- record for the alleged reason that three exhibits are attached to it, which are no part of the bill of exceptions. Counsel for the appellant, in its brief, admits the three exhibits are no part of the bill, but urges they are relevant and material to the issues presented. The law seems to be well established that this Court, in a law appeal, cannot consider matters foreign to the record; that a reviewing Court can only consider evidence contained in the bill of exceptions. Riley v. City Railway Co., 16 Abs 292; Garner v. White, 23 Oh St 192. If these exhibits properly belong in the bill of exceptions, the same should be remanded to the trial court for correction.

The motion will be sustained to the extent that the three exhibits will be ordered stricken.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Ohio Law. Abs. 469, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-frost-ohioctapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack