Kincaid v. Dawson

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kincaid v. Dawson

90 N.E.2d 381, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 440

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1949

DocketNo. 4308

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.E.2d 381 (Kincaid v. Dawson) 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

Kincaid v. Dawson, 90 N.E.2d 381, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 440 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted upon motion of W. H. Sandusky, appellee, seeking an order to dismiss the appeal for the following reasons:

[441]*4411. The appeal herein is on an order quieting the title of this appellee in and to real estate and the notice recites the appeal is on law and fact, while no appeal bond was signed and filed at the time notice of appeal was filed as required by §12223-6 GC.

2. No precipe for transcript of docket and journal entries was filed when notice of appeal was filed as reqquired by §12223-8 GC.

The first branch of the motion is well taken as the giving of an appeal bond is a requisite necessary to perfect the appeal on law and fact. Sec. 12223-6 GC. However, the appeal will be retained on questions of law as provided by §12223-22 GC. The’ appellee urges that no questions of law are involved in this appeal, but this cannot be determined until the assignments of error have been filed. The appellant will be given the time allowed under supplemental Rule VII of this Court for the filing of bill of exceptions, assignments of error and brief.

The second branch of the motion will be overruled as the failure to file a precipe for the transcript of docket and journal entries is not ground for dismissing the appeal. See General Schuyler Fire Insurance Co. v. Shustick, 34 Abs 498.

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

ON MOTION SEEKING AN ORDER

No. 4308. Decided September 13, 1949.

Submitted on motion by the defendant-appellant B. N. Murray, seeking an order striking from the files the brief of the appellee for the reason that the same was not filed in accordance with Rule VII of this Court. This rule has never been strictly enforced by this Court where no injury has been suffered by the appellant by reason of the delay. Upon the facts presented and in the exercise of our discretion the motion 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 upon motion of W. H. Sandusky, appellee, seeking an order to dismiss the appeal for the following reasons:

[441]*4411. The appeal herein is on an order quieting the title of this appellee in and to real estate and the notice recites the appeal is on law and fact, while no appeal bond was signed and filed at the time notice of appeal was filed as required by §12223-6 GC.

2. No precipe for transcript of docket and journal entries was filed when notice of appeal was filed as reqquired by §12223-8 GC.

The first branch of the motion is well taken as the giving of an appeal bond is a requisite necessary to perfect the appeal on law and fact. Sec. 12223-6 GC. However, the appeal will be retained on questions of law as provided by §12223-22 GC. The’ appellee urges that no questions of law are involved in this appeal, but this cannot be determined until the assignments of error have been filed. The appellant will be given the time allowed under supplemental Rule VII of this Court for the filing of bill of exceptions, assignments of error and brief.

The second branch of the motion will be overruled as the failure to file a precipe for the transcript of docket and journal entries is not ground for dismissing the appeal. See General Schuyler Fire Insurance Co. v. Shustick, 34 Abs 498.

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

ON MOTION SEEKING AN ORDER

No. 4308. Decided September 13, 1949.

Submitted on motion by the defendant-appellant B. N. Murray, seeking an order striking from the files the brief of the appellee for the reason that the same was not filed in accordance with Rule VII of this Court. This rule has never been strictly enforced by this Court where no injury has been suffered by the appellant by reason of the delay. Upon the facts presented and in the exercise of our discretion the motion will be overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.E.2d 381, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kincaid-v-dawson-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack