Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0571-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WASHBURN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 608
    INSURANCE CO. v. BOOTH
    Ohio Appeals, Ninth District
    Nos. 622 and 742.
    May 4, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    NEW TRIALS — The grounds of a motion for a new ' trial must appear in the record before Court of Appeals can reverse for error — BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — Unless bill of exceptions is filed in the Court of Appeals a ruling by the lower court on a motion will be presumed justified.
    Attorneys — Kreuger & Pelton, for Insurance Co.; Musser, Kimber & Huffman, for Booth.
   Epitomized Opinion

WASHBURN, J.

In the Common Pleas, in No. 622, plaintiff recovered a judgment in an action for attorney’s fees. Defendant prosecuted error to the Appeals Court. The errors complained of were such as could be raised only by the filing of a motion for a new trial. The record contained no reference to a motion for a new trial except one sentence in the journal entry which was: “Defendant’s motion for new trial is heard and refused to which ruling defendant excepts.” Held:

In order that a reviewing court may reverse for error in overruling a motion for a new trial, the grounds of the motion must appear in the record. This record discloses no error for which this court may properly reverse the judgment.

In No. 742, after the commencement of the above case (622) in this court, proceedings were had in Common Pleas by which the above quoted sentence in the journal entry was struck out and the bill of exceptions was amended to show that no motion for new trial was filed. Defendant than filed a motion to vacate the order of the court making said corrections on the record, on' the ground of irregularly in obtaining said order. The court overruled the motion. In this case those proceedings are brought before this court for review. Held:

Since there is no bill of exceptions filed to show on what evidence the court overruled the motion, it is presumed that such finding was justified.

Judgment and proceedings in both cases affirmed.