Snyder v. Wanamaker

Pickaway Circuit Court

Snyder v. Wanamaker

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 620, 17 Ohio C.C. 184

DecidedNovember 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 620 (Snyder v. Wanamaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pickaway Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snyder v. Wanamaker, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 620, 17 Ohio C.C. 184 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

Wanamaker commenced an action against Snyder in the common pleas court, in which issues were joined. Pending the action, Snyder procured a settlement to be made and an entry, dismissing the case. Subsequently, at the same term in which the entry of dismissal was made, Wanamaker filed a motion to set aside the settlement and the entry thereof, on the ground that the settlement was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. The motion was heard on affidavits as well as upon parol testimony, and on consideration thereof, was sustained. Snyder excepted and took a bill of exceptions containing all the testimony, including the affidavits, but did not file a motion to set aside the order of the court vacating the settlement, and for a new trial, and thereupon filed a petition in error to the circuit court, alleging, among other grounds of error, that' the order of the court, in setting the settlement aside, was against the evidence.

On the hearing of the petition in error in the circuit court, defendant in error objected to the court considering the alleged error above stated, for the reason that in order to bring the evidence before the court for review, it was necessary that a motion for a new trial should have been made in the court below and overruled, and moved that the bill of exceptions be stricken from the petition in error. Objection and motion sustained.

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

Russell, J.

Wanamaker commenced an action against Snyder in the common pleas court, in which issues were joined. Pending the action, Snyder procured a settlement to be made and an entry, dismissing the case. Subsequently, at the same term in which the entry of dismissal was made, Wanamaker filed a motion to set aside the settlement and the entry thereof, on the ground that the settlement was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. The motion was heard on affidavits as well as upon parol testimony, and on consideration thereof, was sustained. Snyder excepted and took a bill of exceptions containing all the testimony, including the affidavits, but did not file a motion to set aside the order of the court vacating the settlement, and for a new trial, and thereupon filed a petition in error to the circuit court, alleging, among other grounds of error, that' the order of the court, in setting the settlement aside, was against the evidence.

On the hearing of the petition in error in the circuit court, defendant in error objected to the court considering the alleged error above stated, for the reason that in order to bring the evidence before the court for review, it was necessary that a motion for a new trial should have been made in the court below and overruled, and moved that the bill of exceptions be stricken from the petition in error. Objection and motion sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 620, 17 Ohio C.C. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-wanamaker-ohcirctpickaway-1898.