Prugh v. Hughel

Ohio Court of Appeals

Prugh v. Hughel

89 N.E.2d 692, 86 Ohio App. 303, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 351, 41 Ohio Op. 319, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 685

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 1949

Docket2051

StatusPublished

This text of 89 N.E.2d 692 (Prugh v. Hughel) 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

Prugh v. Hughel, 89 N.E.2d 692, 86 Ohio App. 303, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 351, 41 Ohio Op. 319, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 685 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule VII and that the order appealed from is not a ñnai order.

On November 18, 1948, the appellant gave notice of intention to appeal on questions of law. More than fifty days have elapsed and the record shows that appellant has failed to file assignments of error, briefs and bill of exceptions. The motion will be sustained for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule VII.

The order appealed from is specifically designated as the order overruling the motion for new trial. After the verdict of the jury was returned, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled. No judgment was entered on the verdict. It is well settled that an order overruling a motion for new trial, without more, is not a final order from which an appeal on questions of law may be prosecuted. Vol. 2, O. Jur., Part 1, pp. 204, 205; Robertson v. Coach Lines Co., 137 Oh St 136, 138, 28 N. E. (2d) 358; Champs v. Stone, 73 Oh Ap 319, 56 N. E. (2d) 251; Mahaffey v. Stine, 28 Abs 361; Hauek v. Hauck, 29 Abs 575; Covington Building & Loan Assn. v. Yost, 31 Abs 672; Martin, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 32 Abs 152. The motion to dismiss will be sustained on the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order.

Counsel will prepare the proper entry.

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 of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule VII and that the order appealed from is not a ñnai order.

On November 18, 1948, the appellant gave notice of intention to appeal on questions of law. More than fifty days have elapsed and the record shows that appellant has failed to file assignments of error, briefs and bill of exceptions. The motion will be sustained for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule VII.

The order appealed from is specifically designated as the order overruling the motion for new trial. After the verdict of the jury was returned, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled. No judgment was entered on the verdict. It is well settled that an order overruling a motion for new trial, without more, is not a final order from which an appeal on questions of law may be prosecuted. Vol. 2, O. Jur., Part 1, pp. 204, 205; Robertson v. Coach Lines Co., 137 Oh St 136, 138, 28 N. E. (2d) 358; Champs v. Stone, 73 Oh Ap 319, 56 N. E. (2d) 251; Mahaffey v. Stine, 28 Abs 361; Hauek v. Hauck, 29 Abs 575; Covington Building & Loan Assn. v. Yost, 31 Abs 672; Martin, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 32 Abs 152. The motion to dismiss will be sustained on the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order.

Counsel will prepare the proper entry.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.E.2d 692, 86 Ohio App. 303, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 351, 41 Ohio Op. 319, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prugh-v-hughel-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack