Case Name: THE HOYT DRY GOODS COMPANY v. WILLIAM E. THOMAS
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1899-10
Citations: 19 Ohio C.C. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE HOYT DRY GOODS COMPANY v. WILLIAM E. THOMAS.
Judges: Before Caldwell, Marvin and Hale, J.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 19
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
(Eighth Circuit — Cuyahoga Co., O., Cir’t Court,
Oct. Term, 1899.)
Before Caldwell, Marvin and Hale, J.
THE HOYT DRY GOODS COMPANY v. WILLIAM E. THOMAS.
(1.) No error will lie to the gjanting of a motion for anew trial.
(2.) The record of a case is proof only as to what the law requires it to contain. A statement of grounds for its decision by the court below embodied in the bill of exceptions, is not thereby made part of the record.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county.
S. Q. Kerruish for Plaintiff in Error.
McKinney & Riley , for Defendant in Error.-

Opinion:
Caldwell, J.
Thomas sued plaintiff in error and judgment went in favor of plaintiff in error. Motion for new trial was granted and plaintiff in error prosecuted error in this court. Granting a motion for a new trial is not such a. final order as will permit prosecution in error, 5 Cir. Ct., 470
This court can not review the holding of the trial court on a motion for a new trial without all the evidence both on the trial and on the motion. Bringing in the bill of exceptions and the fact that the trial court states in his ruling the ground of his decision, does not bring it into the record. The record is proof of only what the law requires it to contain.
The judgment is affirmed.