Case Name: MARTIEN ELEC CO v. HARRIMAN NAT BK
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-12-23
Citations: 8 Ohio Law Abs. 46
Docket Number: No. 9991
Parties: MARTIEN ELEC CO v HARRIMAN NAT BK
Judges: Sherick, J., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 8
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
MARTIEN ELEC CO v HARRIMAN NAT BK
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No. 9991.
Decided December 23, 1929
Messrs. Turney & SJpe, Cleveland, for Elec Co.
Messrs. Ulmer & Berne, Cleveland, for Nat Bk.
LEMERT, P. J. & SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting.

Opinion:
LEMERT, PJ.
We find from an examination of the record in this case, which is extremely lengthy and voluminous, that the plaintiff herein has failed to, have attached to the bill of exceptions some fifteen exhibits that were introduced as evidence in the. various courts wherein some angle of this case was presented.. An examination of the character of- these exhibits reveals the fact that they consisted of pleadings, journal entries, appearance dockets and opinions, which were parts of the record in other cases in the Common Pleas, Court of Appeals and Supreme .Court. The plaintiff herein had the right to substitute copies for the original exhibits, but it has failed to do so.
We note that when the trial court in the instant case signed the bill of exceptions herein that he inserted the following language, as appears from page 76; "quite a number of exhibits are not attached and this bill is signed with the understanding that they are all to be attached before filing.'in Court of Appeals. Otherwise the court does not certify that this is a complete bill."
The exhibits that seem to be missing from the record are defendant's exhibits A, E, F, I, K, L, M, O, P, Q, W, V, W-l and Z, some of which especially bear upon the question of res adjudicata.
Keeping in mind that some of these exhibits show the nature and character of the pleadings in the courts below, and journal entries which might or might not be binding upon. this, a reviewing court, and having this incomplete record before us, this court cannot and will not hear and determine this case with the record in that condition. It is quite evident that the trial court when it made the entry as hereinbefore stated, had in mind that if error was prosecuted in this case that there should be a full and complete record, and the court below signed the bill of exceptions with the understanding that all these exhibits be attached before filing in the Court of Appeal's, and if that was not done, the court below desired it to -be fully understood that the record that he was signing, was not a complete bill, so that y/e find that the record before us, is not complete as required by statute and we, -therefore,. find and hold that the petition in error herein should be and the same is hereby dismissed. Exceptions may be noted.
Sherick, J., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.