Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland R. v. Belt
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Eranklin county. Motion to dismiss the proceeding, on the ground that the plaintiff in error had failed to comply with the statutory provision in relation to printing the record. The petition in error was filed June 24, 1879; but the record not having been printed, the defendant in' error, on January 29, 1880, filed a motion to dismiss the petition in error for that cause.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Eranklin county. Motion to dismiss the proceeding, on the ground that the plaintiff in error had failed to comply with the statutory provision in relation to printing the record. The petition in error was filed June 24, 1879; but the record not having been printed, the defendant in' error, on January 29, 1880, filed a motion to dismiss the petition in error for that cause. The plaintiff in error claims that the case is controlled by the Revised Statutes, § 6711, which did not go into effect until January 1, 1880; and hence, that the plaintiff in error might file…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
By the revised code of civil procedure, which took effect September 1, 1878 (75 Ohio L. 804, § 5), it is provided, in relation to printing records of cases in the Supreme Court, that the plaintiff in error “ may have the printing done, or deposit with the clerk money sufficient therefor; and if he fail, for sixty days after filing the petition, to file such printed copies, or make such deposit, the petition shall he dismissed, unless the court, on good cause shown, extend the time, or dispense with such printing.”’ The provision was incorporated into the Revised Statutes (§ 6711)…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1846
- Commonwealth v. DesmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Rogers v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864