Case Name: MOUNTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECLIPSE MOTOR LINES, INC. et, Defendants-Appellees
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1949-10-13
Citations: 56 Ohio Law Abs. 249
Docket Number: No. 4273
Parties: MOUNTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECLIPSE MOTOR LINES, INC. et, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: MILLER, PJ, and HORNBECK, J, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 56
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
MOUNTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECLIPSE MOTOR LINES, INC. et, Defendants-Appellees.
Ohio Appeals, Second District, Franklin County.
No. 4273.
Decided October 13, 1949.
John P. Moloney, Russ Bothwell, Columbus, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hamilton & Kramer, Columbus, for defendants-appellees.

Opinion:
OPINION
By WISEMAN, J.
This is an appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, sustaining a motion to quash service of summons and dismissing the action against the Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.
The exhibits in the form of affidavits presented to the trial court in support of the motion to quash cannot be considered by this court, as there is no bill of exceptions. The affidavits are attached to the transcript of the docket and journal entries and original papers. The affidavits being used in proof of an issue of fact are not a part of the record, even though filed with the clerk. Such affidavits should have been brought upon the record in the form of a bill of exceptions. Langan v. Kessinger, 23 Abs. 392; Simes v. Dayton-Xenia Ry. Co., 24 Abs. 595; Willett, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 73 Oh Ap 59, 54 N. E. (2d) 317; Vol. 2 O. Jur. pp. 593, 641.
A factual issue being presented, in the absence of the bill of exceptions, the regularity and the validity of the judgment is presumed. We regret that the record is not properly prepared to present the more important question raised in the briefs.
Judgment affirmed.
MILLER, PJ, and HORNBECK, J, concur.