Snouffer v. Bartlett

Ohio Court of Appeals

Snouffer v. Bartlett

64 N.E.2d 848, 45 Ohio Law. Abs. 107, 1945 Ohio App. LEXIS 692

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 3, 1945

DocketNo. 3857

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 N.E.2d 848 (Snouffer v. Bartlett) 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

Snouffer v. Bartlett, 64 N.E.2d 848, 45 Ohio Law. Abs. 107, 1945 Ohio App. LEXIS 692 (Ohio Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

Submitted on motion of the defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal herein designated as an appeal nn questions of law and fact and to fix the time for filing a bill of exceptions for an appeal on questions of'law, for the reason that the transcript filed shows that the appeal is from a judgment of the trial court sustaining a motion for judgment on the Statements of counsel and the'pleadings.

The record discloses that there was no hearing of factual [108]*108issues in the Court below. The motion is sustained and the appellant is granted leave to file bill of exceptions within thirty days from the filing of entry sustaining this motion, and leave granted parties to file briefs under Rule VII.

For authority on this ruling, see §12223-22 GC; Bauer v Grimstead, 142 Oh St 56; LeMaistre v Clark, 142 Oh St 1; Thompson v Moore, 72 Oh Ap 539.

HORNBECK; P. J., WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ„ concur.

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