Case Name: The National Union v. Stoll
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1902-02-04
Citations: 65 Ohio St. 547
Docket Number: 
Parties: The National Union v. Stoll.
Judges: Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Burkist, Spear and DaVis, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 65
Pages: 547–549

Head Matter:
The National Union v. Stoll.
Endorsement by judge of bill of exceptions — Not extension of time for signing same, when.
An endorsement by a trial judge upon a bill of exceptions, of an extension of time for filing such bill, is not in legal effect an extension of the time for signing the same.
(Decided February 4, 1902.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
The motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict on the 28th day of December; 1898^ The bill of exceptions was delivered to the trial judge, February 11, 1899. The following was written upon the bill of exceptions, February 15, 1899: “Leave is hereby given to file this bill of exceptions within ten days next after the expiration of the fifty days allowed by law. Jno. P. Murphy, Judge.”
On the next day, February 16, 1899, the following was placed upon the journal of the court:
“For good cause shown, and on motion of counsel for defendant, the time for allowing and signing the bill of exceptions presented by defendant in this cause is hereby extended for a period not exceeding ten days beyond the expiration of the 50 days, next after the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and said extension is this day endorsed by the court, the trial judge on said bill of exceptions, to which ruling plaintiff hereby excepts.”
On February 23, 1899, the trial judge allowed and signed the bill: a proper entry was placed on the journal, and the bill was then duly filed.
A petition in error having been filed in the circuit court, that court on motion of defendant in error, struck the bill of exceptions from the files, to which plaintiff excepted, and took a proper bill of exceptions. The judgment was then affirmed, and thereupon the plaintiff in error came here seeking to reverse the order of the circuit court striking the bill of exceptions from the files.
Lawrence Maxioell, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Theodore Horstman, for defendant in error, cited the foliowing authorities:
Neuman v. Becker, 54 Ohio St., 323; Shillito v. Thacker, 43 Ohio St., 63; Rankin v. Sanderson, 35 Ohio St., 482; Wagner v. Ziegler, 44 Ohio St., 59; Bowen v. Gazlay, 4 Circ. Dec., 440; 8 C. C. R., 256; Johnson v. Johnson, 10 Circ. Dec., 411; 19 C. C. R., 610; Bacon v. Noble, 11 Circ. Dec., 49; 20 C. C. R., 281; Hill v. Bassett, 27 Ohio St., 597; Burk v. Railway Co., 26 Ohio St., 643; Heffner v. Moyst, 40 Ohio St., 112; Railroad Co. v. Kirchner, 3 Circ. Dec., 420; 6 C. C. R., 211; Meyer v. Schreder, 6 Re., 1083; 10 Am. Law Rec., 309; 6 Bull., 698; Young v. Shallenberger, 53 Ohio St., 291; Palmer v. Orcott, 4 Circ. Dec., 259; 9 C. C. R., 227, 229; Heingartner v. McLean, 1 O. S. C. D., 673; 38 Bull., 182.

Opinion:
By ti-ie Court:
By section 5302, Revised Statutes, the trial judge, not the court, may extend the time for signing a bill of exceptions for a period not exceeding ten-days beyond the expiration of fifty days; which extension must be endorsed on the bill of exceptions by the trial Judge.
There is no authority by statute for entering this extension of time upon the journal of ¡the court, but it must be endorsed on the bill by the trial judge. There is no time expressly fixed by statute wherein a bill of exceptions shall be filed, and therefore-the extension of time- allowed for filing the bill, would not include the signing upon the principle that the greater includes the less, for the reason that an extension of- time for filing is not provided for, and therefore such unauthorized extension could not include an extension for signing.
As there was no extension of time for signing the bill endorsed on the bill by the trial judge, the bill was signed after the time allowed by law, and the circuit court was right in striking the same from the files.
Judgment affirmed.
Minsi-iall, C. J., Williams, Burkist, Spear and DaVis, JJ., concur.