Lawrence v. Moore

Ohio Court of Appeals

Lawrence v. Moore

107 N.E.2d 551, 91 Ohio App. 123, 48 Ohio Op. 253, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 557

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 1950

Docket594

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 N.E.2d 551 (Lawrence v. Moore) 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

Lawrence v. Moore, 107 N.E.2d 551, 91 Ohio App. 123, 48 Ohio Op. 253, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 557 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

This appeal on questions of law is from an order granting a motion to vacate and ■ set aside a judgment for the defendant and ordering a new trial. The motion contained ten grounds. The' order, which was entered March 22,1950, did not specify the ground or grounds on which it was granted. On March 24, 1950, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to state in its order the ground or grounds upon which it vacated the judgment and ordered, a new trial. The court did not act on that motion, and on April 5, 1950, defendant filed his notice of appeal.

Section 12223-2, General Code, as amended, effective September 30, 1947, makes such action by the court mandatory and it is especially important in this case, not only that there may be an orderly consideration of the review, but because one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was that the verdict and judgment were against the weight of the evidence. If that were the ground on which the motion was granted, and *124 there should be another trial, proper application of Section 11577, G-eneral Code, which forbids the granting of more than one new trial on that ground, could not be made unless the order is made clear in this respect.

In two cases, this court has dealt with similar records. Merriam v. Bonded Oil Co., 81 Ohio App., 309, 79 N. E. (2d), 381, and Macias v. Danford (unreported), decided May 23, 1949, by the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Appellate District.

Following the procedure applied in those cases, the order vacating the judgment herein will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the court to redetermine the motion to vacate, and, if granted, to comply with the request to specify the ground or grounds of its action in so doing.

Judgment reversed.

Conn and Fess, JJ., concur.

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

Carpenter, J.

This appeal on questions of law is from an order granting a motion to vacate and ■ set aside a judgment for the defendant and ordering a new trial. The motion contained ten grounds. The' order, which was entered March 22,1950, did not specify the ground or grounds on which it was granted. On March 24, 1950, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to state in its order the ground or grounds upon which it vacated the judgment and ordered, a new trial. The court did not act on that motion, and on April 5, 1950, defendant filed his notice of appeal.

Section 12223-2, General Code, as amended, effective September 30, 1947, makes such action by the court mandatory and it is especially important in this case, not only that there may be an orderly consideration of the review, but because one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was that the verdict and judgment were against the weight of the evidence. If that were the ground on which the motion was granted, and *124 there should be another trial, proper application of Section 11577, G-eneral Code, which forbids the granting of more than one new trial on that ground, could not be made unless the order is made clear in this respect.

In two cases, this court has dealt with similar records. Merriam v. Bonded Oil Co., 81 Ohio App., 309, 79 N. E. (2d), 381, and Macias v. Danford (unreported), decided May 23, 1949, by the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Appellate District.

Following the procedure applied in those cases, the order vacating the judgment herein will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the court to redetermine the motion to vacate, and, if granted, to comply with the request to specify the ground or grounds of its action in so doing.

Judgment reversed.

Conn and Fess, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.E.2d 551, 91 Ohio App. 123, 48 Ohio Op. 253, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-moore-ohioctapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack