Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas
This text of 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341 (Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-dry-goods-co-v-thomas-ohcirctcuyahoga-1899.