Case Name: Union Sand and Supply Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fairport Harbor (Village) et, Defendants-Appellees
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1960-02-11
Citations: 90 Ohio Law Abs. 599
Docket Number: No. 638
Parties: Union Sand and Supply Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fairport Harbor (Village) et, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Phillips and Donahue, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 90
Pages: 599–601

Head Matter:
Union Sand and Supply Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fairport Harbor (Village) et, Defendants-Appellees.
Ohio Appeals, Seventh District, Lake County.
No. 638.
Decided February 11, 1960.
Messrs. Baker <& Pollock, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mr. Richard 0. Colgrove, solicitor for Village of Fairport Harbor, for defendants-appellees.

Opinion:
Grirrith, P. J.
Motion of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff-appellant is overruled.
The paramount relief sought in this action is chancery in nature in that the plaintiff is seeking an injunction and testing the constitutionality of a village ordinance.
Rule V of the Rules of Practice of the Courts of Appeals lays out the pathway for procedure with respect to evidence, briefs and arguments.
In the instant case it appears that the notice of appeal was duly filed, accompanied by the requisite bond and praecipe, and the complaint is that the appellant has not complied with Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Rule V.
The Court of Appeals of the Seventh Appellate District considers these rules as procedural only and not mandatory in nature.
Clearly appellee is entitled to a reasonable time in which to brief its case after all the evidence is in.
It is incumbent upon the appellant to produce evidence either by way of stipulation in writing, by deposition, or by taking of testimony by a referee appointed by the court.
Failure on the part of the appellant so to do would constitute a valid reason for dismissal of appellant's appeal on the grounds of failure to prosecute.
Such being the case it is not now necessary for the court to set a time within which appellee may file its brief.
Motion overruled.
Phillips and Donahue, JJ., concur.