Nickerson v. Nickerson

88 N.E.2d 64, 84 Ohio App. 516, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 511, 39 Ohio Op. 575, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 731
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 18, 1949
DocketNo. 2028
StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.E.2d 64 (Nickerson v. Nickerson) 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
Nickerson v. Nickerson, 88 N.E.2d 64, 84 Ohio App. 516, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 511, 39 Ohio Op. 575, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 731 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

OPINION

Per CURIAM.

This cause is submitted on motion of defendant Margaret Nickerson, appellee herein to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the ground that no bill of exceptions, assignments of error or brief had been filed by plaintiff, appellant herein.

Notice of intention to appeal on questions of law was filed on October 27, 1948. The failure to file a bill of exceptions within, the time prescribed by law does not necessarily require the dismissal of the appeal. If the errors complained of appear on the face of the record a bill of exceptions would not be required. There being no assignments of error, the court can not determine -whether a bill of exceptions is required. The motion will be overruled on that ground.

The filing of assignments of error and brief is controlled by Rule VII which requires the appellant to file the same within 50 days after filing notice of appeal. No good cause has been shown for failure to file assignments of error and brief within the required time.

This court has consistently held that the failure of the appellant to file assignments of error and brief within the time required by Rule VII is ground for dismissal of the appeal. Anderson v. Industrial Comm., 135 Oh St 77, 19 N. E. 2d 509; Peck v. County Com’rs, 28 Abs 702; Seifer v. Industrial Comm., 29 Abs 52; Brown, Gdn., v. Brown, 42 N. E. 2d 456; State ex rel. Merrill v. Moore, 84 Oh Ap 49, 82 N. E. 2d 765.

The motion to dismiss the appeal on the latter ground is sustained.

Motion sustained.

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

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

Related

State, Ex Rel. Merrill v. Moore
82 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1948)
Anderson v. Industrial Commission
19 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1939)
Peck v. County Commissioners
28 Ohio Law. Abs. 702 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1939)
Seifer v. Industrial Commission
29 Ohio Law. Abs. 52 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1939)
Brown v. Brown
42 N.E.2d 456 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 N.E.2d 64, 84 Ohio App. 516, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 511, 39 Ohio Op. 575, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickerson-v-nickerson-ohioctapp-1949.