Opinion

Haffelfinger Co. v. Cianflona

  • 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 481
  • 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 934
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Dec 31, 1932
Status
Published
Author
Hornbeck
On the bench
Allread, Hornbeck, Kunkle
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

HORNBECK, J.

Preliminary to consideration of the errors claimed we are met with a motion by the receiver, a defendant in error, to dismiss the error proceedings for failure of the plaintiff in error to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court. Upon this question the brief of plaintiff in error is silent. We believe the law is well established in Ohio and that neither in cases of law nor in equity can the evidence be weighed on error unless the trial court has been given that opportunity upon a motion for a new trial. The errors urged by the plaintiff in error in the instant case can not be determined without a consideration of the evidence. The motion to dismiss must, therefore, be sustained upon the authority of Minnear v Holloway, 56 Oh St, 151; Everett v Sumner, 32 Oh St, 562; Spangler v Brown, 26 Oh St, 389; Randall v Turner, 17 Oh St, 262; Westfall v Dugan, 14 Oh St, 276.

ALLREAD, PJ, and KUNKLE, J, concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.