Kiger v. Beery

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kiger v. Beery

23 Ohio Law. Abs. 32, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1936

DocketNo 2703

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Ohio Law. Abs. 32 (Kiger v. Beery) 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

Kiger v. Beery, 23 Ohio Law. Abs. 32, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959 (Ohio Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By BARNES, PJ.

The above entitled cause is in this court on appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. Apparently the plaintiff acted as his own counsel. In order to be sure that no injustice is done by reason of plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with appellate procedure we have examined the entire record in this court. We find that the appeal is necessarily on a question of law. It was a law case pure and simple and we may only review on errors occurring at the trial in the lower court.

Unfortunately the plaintiff has failed to file a bill of exceptions and the time has now expired within which he could file such bill. The errors complained of would only be manifest through the bill of exceptions. Under this state of the record the petition in error must be .dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Exceptions will be allowed.

HORNBECK and BODEY, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By BARNES, PJ.

The above entitled cause is in this court on appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. Apparently the plaintiff acted as his own counsel. In order to be sure that no injustice is done by reason of plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with appellate procedure we have examined the entire record in this court. We find that the appeal is necessarily on a question of law. It was a law case pure and simple and we may only review on errors occurring at the trial in the lower court.

Unfortunately the plaintiff has failed to file a bill of exceptions and the time has now expired within which he could file such bill. The errors complained of would only be manifest through the bill of exceptions. Under this state of the record the petition in error must be .dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Exceptions will be allowed.

HORNBECK and BODEY, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ohio Law. Abs. 32, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiger-v-beery-ohioctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack