Case Name: A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach
Court: Cuyahoga Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-06-10
Citations: 34 Ohio C.C. Dec. 586
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach.
Judges: Caldwell, Hale and Marvin, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 34
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
NEW TRIAL
[Cuyahoga (8th) Circuit Court,
June 10, 1901.]
Caldwell, Hale and Marvin, JJ.
A. W. Moskowitz v. Silas Auerbach.
Date for Filing Motion for New Trial.
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.
Error.
Hile <& Horner, for plaintiff in error.
Henderson & Quail, for defendant in error.
Affirming, Moskowitz v. Auerbach, 11 Dec. 522 (8 N. P. 331.)

Opinion:
CALDWELL, J.
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 findings, notwithstanding the general verdict against him. The complaint made, is that the court erred in overuling that motion.
We fully concur in the judgment of the court.
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 motion 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.
Hale and Marvin, JJ., concur.