Case Name: SNOUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARTLETT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1945-11-03
Citations: 45 Ohio Law Abs. 107
Docket Number: No. 3857
Parties: SNOUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARTLETT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: HORNBECK; P. J., WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 45
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
SNOUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARTLETT, Defendant-Appellee.
Ohio Appeals, Second District, Franklin County.
No. 3857.
Decided November 3, 1945.
Paul R. Gingher, Columbus, and J. Paul McNamara, Columbus, for plaintiff-appellant.
Wm. Harvey Jones, Columbus, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
BY THE COURT:
Submitted on motion of the defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal herein designated as an appeal nn questions of law and fact and to fix the time for filing a bill of exceptions for an appeal on questions of'law, for the reason that the transcript filed shows that the appeal is from a judgment of the trial court sustaining a motion for judgment on the Statements of counsel and the'pleadings.
The record discloses that there was no hearing of factual issues in the Court below. The motion is sustained and the appellant is granted leave to file bill of exceptions within thirty days from the filing of entry sustaining this motion, and leave granted parties to file briefs under Rule VII.
For authority on this ruling, see §12223-22 GC; Bauer v Grimstead, 142 Oh St 56; LeMaistre v Clark, 142 Oh St 1; Thompson v Moore, 72 Oh Ap 539.
HORNBECK; P. J., WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ" concur.