Case Name: A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach
Court: Cuyahoga County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-06-10
Citations: 24 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 274
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach.
Judges: Caldwell, J.; TIale, J., and Marvin, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 24
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
AS TO TIME FOR FILING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach.
Decided, June 10, 1901.
New Trial — Date for'Filing Motion.
The time within which a motion for a new trial may be filed, dates from the rendition of the verdict and not from the overruling of a motion for judgment upon special findings of the jury.
Hile & Horner, for plaintiff in error.
Ilenclerson <£' Quail, contra.
Caldwell, J.; TIale, J., and Marvin, J., concur.

Opinion:
This case is here on a petition in error to reverse a judgment of the court of common pleas. Special findings were submitted to the jury at the request of counsel, and answers -were returned to the special findings, and a general verdict. Thereupon counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on-the. special findr ings, notwithstanding the general verdict against him. The court overruled his motion and, in overruling the motion, delivered an opinion which has been presented to the court and which has been published in one of the legal journals .of. the state. The complaint made, is that the court erred in overruling that motion.
AA^e fully concur in the judgment of the court and in the opinion pronounced as printed and as presented to us.
The only other error complained of is that the court refused to permit the plaintiff .to file a motion for a new trial. The plaintiff had a motion filed in time, which he thereafter withdrew, and after his motion for judgment on the pleadings was disposed of, he applied to the court to file his motion for a new trial. The time prescribed by statute for filing a motion for a new trial had then long passed and the court for that reason refused leave to file it. It is claimed this was error, and that the time for filing a mol ion for a new trial does not apply where a motion for judgment on special findings is interposed; that where that is done, the motion for a new trial should not be filed until that motion is disposed of. We do not think this point is well taken.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.