Case Name: HEIGEL v. HEIGEL
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-01-11
Citations: 11 Ohio Law Abs. 402
Docket Number: No 2598
Parties: HEIGEL v HEIGEL
Judges: LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 11
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
HEIGEL v HEIGEL
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co
No 2598.
Decided Jan 11, 1932
Edwin J. Lynch, Toledo, for plaintiff in error.
Frank A. Carabin, Toledo, and Mary E. Gillen for defendant in error.

Opinion:
RICHARDS, J.
A petition in error was filed in this court on September 12th, 1931, seeking a reversal of the judgment. It thus appears by the record that the petition in error was not filed until seventy-nine days after the entry of the judgment, while the statutory limitation is seventy days.
The Supreme Court has decided in Craig vs. Welpley, 104 Oh St, 312, and in Wells, Jr. vs. Wells, 105 Oh St, 471, that in a case of this character the time for filing a petition in error begins to run from the date of the entry of the judgment and not from the date of the overruling of the motion for a new trial. This is so because the court was empowered to enter the judgment, and, did in fact do so, as soon as the case was decided. That a different rule may apply in cases triable to a jury, was held in Boedker vs. The Warren E. Richards Co, 124 Oh St, 12, decided by the Supreme Court May 27th, 1931.
Because the petition in error was not filed within the limit fixed by statute, this court has no jurisdiction of the action.
Petition in error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.