Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SULLIVAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 50
    TELL-STOP CO. v. TELL-STOP APPLIANCE CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 6161.
    Decided Nov. 9, 1925
    941. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Depositions cannot be taken after the prosecution of trial unless by consent of counsel or by intervention of the court, but in the latter case, if the intervention is objectionable, the judge may continue the case, as without the intervention.
    Attorneys — Joseph L. Stern for Tell-Stop Co.; Waterworth & Waterworth for Tell-Stop Appliance Co.; all of Cleveland.
   SULLIVAN, J.

This case came into the Court of Appeals from the Cleveland Municipal Court and it was sought to reverse the judgment of the court below on several grounds; but the essential error complained of, was that after the commencement of the trial below, and at points where the trial had substantially proceeded, the court on application of the Tell-Stop Appliance Co., adjourned the court to take depositions, against the objections and exceptions of the Tell-Stop Co.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Every deposition under 11547 GC., intended to be read in evidence on the trial must be filed at least one day before the day of trial.
2. No exceptions other than for incompetency or irrelevancy shall be regarded unless made and filed before the day of the trial.
3. The words of the statute are clear and unambiguous and need no interpretation.
4. If this interpretation of the statutes were not correct, the litigant would have no time, and be deprived of the right to except in toto to the depositions.

Judgment reversed.