Murphy v. Bliss

Ohio Court of Appeals

Murphy v. Bliss

157 N.E. 907, 25 Ohio App. 153, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 375, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 621

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1927

Docket1812

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 N.E. 907 (Murphy v. Bliss) 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

Murphy v. Bliss, 157 N.E. 907, 25 Ohio App. 153, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 375, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CULBERT, J.

This case was started in the Toledo Municipal Court by Joseph Murphy against Daniel Bliss. Judgment in that court was rendered in favor of Bliss. On appeal to the Lucas Common Pleas, the jury disagreed and was discharged. At the close of all the evidence, Murphy interposed a motion to direct a verdict in his favor for $76“ This motion was overruled and after the discharge of the jury Murphy filed a motion for a directed verdict, notwithstanding the failure of the jury to return a verdict in his favor.

This motion was overruled and error was prosecuted, and the' only question involved is whether or not the action of the trial court" in overruling the motions made by Bliss, is a judgment rendered or. final order made, from which error proceedings can be prosecuted. Bliss filed a motion to dismiss the petition in error, claiming that same was filed without authority of law. The Court of Appeals held:

1. Section 12247 GC. provides in part:— “A judgment rendered or final order made by a court of Common Pleas - - - by municipal Court-may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction in the county - - - for error appearing on the record.”

2. The record does not disclose that any judgment was rendered and the action of the court in overruling the motions is not a final order as contemplated by statute.

3. A final order, as defined by 12258 GC. is one affecting a substantial right in an action, when in effect it determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding, or upon a summary application in an action after judgment. >

4. The motion made by Murphy at the close of all the evidence was, in effect, equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence.

Motion to dismiss petition in error allowed.

(Richards, & Williams, JJ., concur.)

Note — Motion to certify overruled, 5 Abs. 155; OS. Pend, case will be found in 5 Abs. 205.

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

CULBERT, J.

This case was started in the Toledo Municipal Court by Joseph Murphy against Daniel Bliss. Judgment in that court was rendered in favor of Bliss. On appeal to the Lucas Common Pleas, the jury disagreed and was discharged. At the close of all the evidence, Murphy interposed a motion to direct a verdict in his favor for $76“ This motion was overruled and after the discharge of the jury Murphy filed a motion for a directed verdict, notwithstanding the failure of the jury to return a verdict in his favor.

This motion was overruled and error was prosecuted, and the' only question involved is whether or not the action of the trial court" in overruling the motions made by Bliss, is a judgment rendered or. final order made, from which error proceedings can be prosecuted. Bliss filed a motion to dismiss the petition in error, claiming that same was filed without authority of law. The Court of Appeals held:

1. Section 12247 GC. provides in part:— “A judgment rendered or final order made by a court of Common Pleas - - - by municipal Court-may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction in the county - - - for error appearing on the record.”

2. The record does not disclose that any judgment was rendered and the action of the court in overruling the motions is not a final order as contemplated by statute.

3. A final order, as defined by 12258 GC. is one affecting a substantial right in an action, when in effect it determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding, or upon a summary application in an action after judgment. >

4. The motion made by Murphy at the close of all the evidence was, in effect, equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence.

Motion to dismiss petition in error allowed.

(Richards, & Williams, JJ., concur.)

Note — Motion to certify overruled, 5 Abs. 155; OS. Pend, case will be found in 5 Abs. 205.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E. 907, 25 Ohio App. 153, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 375, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bliss-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack