Wyant v. Russell

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 6
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wyant v. Russell. Read the opinion of the Court — 109 Ohio St. 167
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 26, 1923·No. No. 17841·Published

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

1. Abuse of discretion will not be presumed but must appear from the record.

2. The granting of a motion, after judgment, to vacate a former order of the court overruling a motion for a new trial, and an entry of a new order overruling the motion for a new trial, are not effective to postpone the date from' which the statute limiting the time within which a proceeding in error may be commenced begins to run, where the judgmént upon the verdict antedates such entry and has not been vacated.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

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

Wyant v. Russell, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 6 (Ohio 1923).

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 6 (Wyant v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.