Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341

Cuyahoga Circuit Court·Decided December 11, 1899·Published

Opinion

Caldwell, J.

Thomas sued plaintiff in error and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in error. Motion for new trial was granted and plaintiff in error prosecutes error in this court.

Granting a motion for a new trial is not such a final order as will permit prosecution in error. Hauff v. Railway Co., 3 Circ. Dec., 230.

This court cannot review the holding of the trial court on motion for a new trial without all the evidence, both on the trial and on the motion. Bringing in the bill of exceptions and the fact that the trial court states in his ruling the ground of his decision, does not bring it into the record. The record is proof of only what the law requires it to contain.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Caldwell, J.

Thomas sued plaintiff in error and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in error. Motion for new trial was granted and plaintiff in error prosecutes error in this court.

Granting a motion for a new trial is not such a final order as will permit prosecution in error. Hauff v. Railway Co., 3 Circ. Dec., 230.

This court cannot review the holding of the trial court on motion for a new trial without all the evidence, both on the trial and on the motion. Bringing in the bill of exceptions and the fact that the trial court states in his ruling the ground of his decision, does not bring it into the record. The record is proof of only what the law requires it to contain.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341 (Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.