Court Opinion

ID: 9815611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:15:34.696884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:08.331797
License: Public Domain

*463Collier, J.
This is an appeal on questions of law directed to a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Meigs County, sustaining certain exceptions to the inventory and appraisement filed in the Probate Court of that county in the estate of Frank Gardner, deceased. The Probate Judge having some interest in the estate, the cause was certified to the Common Pleas Court under the provisions of Section 2101.38, Revised Code.
The two exceptions to the inventory and appraisement sustained in the trial court, related to the allowance of the widow’s claim for her year’s support under the provisions of Section 2117.20 et seq, Revised Code, and her claim of property exempt from administration under the provisions of Section 2115.13, Revised Code.
Appellant has filed no bill of exceptions or stipulations of facts. The record does not disclose how the issues were submitted in the court below. In the written opinion of the trial court, the exceptions were sustained on the ground that the statute of limitations had outlawed the widow’s claims and that, by reason of the lapse of time and circumstances, her claims had become stale. In our opinion, a proceeding of this kind contemplates a hearing on the evidence or, in lieu thereof, a stipulation of an agreed statement of facts. In the absence of one or the other, in an appeal on questions of law, a reviewing court cannot take cognizance of facts, dates, and figures set forth in the applications for such claims.
It is well established that where the record consists only of pleadings and journal entries in the lower court and the question cannot be determined by such record, a reviewing court has no alternative but to affirm the judgment. 4 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 565, Section 1202; In re Lands, Lots or Parts of Lots, 146 Ohio St., 589, 67 N. E. (2d), 433 (a Meigs County case).
Without a bill of exceptions before us, we must indulge a presumption that the trial court had before it sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment. For this reason alone the judgment must be, and is, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Gillen, P. J., and Radcliff, J., concur.