Case Name: Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. William E. Thomas
Court: Cuyahoga Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1899-12-11
Citations: 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 341
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. William E. Thomas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 10
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
ERROR — NEW TRIAL — PRACTICE.
[Cuyahoga Circuit Court,
December 11, 1899.]
Caldwell, Marvin and Hale, JJ1
Hoyt Dry Goods Co. v. William E. Thomas.
1. Granting New Trial — Error Does not Lie.
Granting a motion for a new trial is not a final order from which error will He.
2. Review Requires all the Evidence.
The circuit court cannot 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.
3. Failure to Bring it into the Record.
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.
4. Record as Proof.
The record is proof of only what the law requires it to contain.
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 was rendered in favor of plaintiff in error. Motion for new trial was granted and plaintiff in error prosecutes error in this court.
Granting a motion for a new trial is not such a final order as will permit prosecution in error. Hauff v. Railway Co., 3 Circ. Dec., 230.
This court cannot review the holding of the trial court on 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.