Martin v. Coffman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Martin v. Coffman

91 N.E.2d 297, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 152, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 820

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 1949

DocketNo. 2067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 N.E.2d 297 (Martin v. Coffman) 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

Martin v. Coffman, 91 N.E.2d 297, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 152, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 820 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion by defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not given a valid notice of appeal.

This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Dayton, Ohio. On May 9th the judgment entry was filed dismissing the plaintiff’s cause. A motion for new trial was filed, which was overruled on June 9th. On June 13th the notice of intention to appeal was filed. It is apparent that the notice of appeal was filed within time as provided by §12223-7 GC.

The notice of appeal is as follows: “Now comes the appellant and hereby gives notice of his intention to appeal the decision in this case to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery County, Ohio, on question of law.” It is contended by the appellee that the notice of appeal is not from the judgment rendered on May 9, 1949. The notice of appeal is defective in that it does not state that the appeal is from the judgment; neither does it designate the date of the order from which the appeal is taken. However, it has been held that [153]*153where there is only one judgment from which an appeal can be taken the failure to designate the judgment by date is not fatal. The notice of appeal may be amended by stating the date of the judgment from which the appeal has been taken. Mosey v. Hiestand, 138 Oh St 249, 34 N. E. (2d) 210; Fifty West Broad, Inc., v. Poulson, 41 Abs 212, 57 N. E. (2d) 687; Manhattan Terrazzo Brass Strip Co., Inc., v. Benzing & Sons, 35 Abs 492, 72 Oh Ap 197, 41 N. E. (2d) 736; Kline v. Green, 25 Abs 240; In re Dickinson, 43 N. E. (2d) 294.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled. The appellant is granted leave to amend the notice of appeal at bar.

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 on motion by defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not given a valid notice of appeal.

This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Dayton, Ohio. On May 9th the judgment entry was filed dismissing the plaintiff’s cause. A motion for new trial was filed, which was overruled on June 9th. On June 13th the notice of intention to appeal was filed. It is apparent that the notice of appeal was filed within time as provided by §12223-7 GC.

The notice of appeal is as follows: “Now comes the appellant and hereby gives notice of his intention to appeal the decision in this case to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery County, Ohio, on question of law.” It is contended by the appellee that the notice of appeal is not from the judgment rendered on May 9, 1949. The notice of appeal is defective in that it does not state that the appeal is from the judgment; neither does it designate the date of the order from which the appeal is taken. However, it has been held that [153]*153where there is only one judgment from which an appeal can be taken the failure to designate the judgment by date is not fatal. The notice of appeal may be amended by stating the date of the judgment from which the appeal has been taken. Mosey v. Hiestand, 138 Oh St 249, 34 N. E. (2d) 210; Fifty West Broad, Inc., v. Poulson, 41 Abs 212, 57 N. E. (2d) 687; Manhattan Terrazzo Brass Strip Co., Inc., v. Benzing & Sons, 35 Abs 492, 72 Oh Ap 197, 41 N. E. (2d) 736; Kline v. Green, 25 Abs 240; In re Dickinson, 43 N. E. (2d) 294.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled. The appellant is granted leave to amend the notice of appeal at bar.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E.2d 297, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 152, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-coffman-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack