Mounts v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mounts v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.

91 N.E.2d 530, 88 Ohio App. 211, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 249, 44 Ohio Op. 327, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 574

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 1949

Docket4273

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.E.2d 530 (Mounts v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.) 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

Mounts v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc., 91 N.E.2d 530, 88 Ohio App. 211, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 249, 44 Ohio Op. 327, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By WISEMAN, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, sustaining a motion to quash service of summons and dismissing the action against the Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.

The exhibits in the form of affidavits presented to the trial court in support of the motion to quash cannot be considered by this court, as there is no bill of exceptions. The affidavits are attached to the transcript of the docket and journal entries and original papers. The affidavits being used in proof of an issue of fact are not a part of the record, even though filed with the clerk. Such affidavits should have been brought upon the record in the form of a bill of exceptions. Langan v. Kessinger, 23 Abs. 392; Simes v. Dayton-Xenia Ry. Co., 24 Abs. 595; Willett, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 73 Oh Ap 59, 54 N. E. (2d) 317; Vol. 2 O. Jur. pp. 593, 641.

*250 A factual issue being presented, in the absence of the bill of exceptions, the regularity and the validity of the judgment is presumed. We regret that the record is not properly prepared to present the more important question raised in the briefs.

Judgment affirmed.

MILLER, PJ, and HORNBECK, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By WISEMAN, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, sustaining a motion to quash service of summons and dismissing the action against the Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.

The exhibits in the form of affidavits presented to the trial court in support of the motion to quash cannot be considered by this court, as there is no bill of exceptions. The affidavits are attached to the transcript of the docket and journal entries and original papers. The affidavits being used in proof of an issue of fact are not a part of the record, even though filed with the clerk. Such affidavits should have been brought upon the record in the form of a bill of exceptions. Langan v. Kessinger, 23 Abs. 392; Simes v. Dayton-Xenia Ry. Co., 24 Abs. 595; Willett, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 73 Oh Ap 59, 54 N. E. (2d) 317; Vol. 2 O. Jur. pp. 593, 641.

*250 A factual issue being presented, in the absence of the bill of exceptions, the regularity and the validity of the judgment is presumed. We regret that the record is not properly prepared to present the more important question raised in the briefs.

Judgment affirmed.

MILLER, PJ, and HORNBECK, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E.2d 530, 88 Ohio App. 211, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 249, 44 Ohio Op. 327, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mounts-v-eclipse-motor-lines-inc-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack