Legal Opinion

Heiland v. Hildebrand

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1946No. 437PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HORNBECK, P. J.:

This appeal was noted as upon law and fact but as it was predicated on a money judgment, manifestly it could not be such type of appeal and counsel have at all times presented it as an appeal on questions of law. The Court will so consider it.

At the outset, we are confronted with a motion of the Appellee to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no motion for new trial was filed within the period prescribed by law.

If it be granted that the motion was not filed within time, the appeal would not be dismissed but we would be precluded from considering any assignment of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnellIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  2. State ex rel. Cosgrove v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  3. Mace v. O'ReilleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Noonan v. SpearSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  5. Boyles v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1931

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Welsh v. Brown-Graves Lumber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Universal Underwriters Insurance v. PusateriPortsmouth Municipal Court · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API