Hall v. American Brake Shoe Co.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 40885,40885
• Parties: , 42 O.O.2d 6 HALL et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE CO. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 11

13 Ohio St.2d 11

233 N.E.2d 582, 42 O.O.2d 6

HALL et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 40885.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 3, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

Neither the provisions of Section 2321.05, Revised Code, nor any other provision of law requires the filing in an appellate court of a bill of exceptions setting forth evidence adduced in the tribunal from whose decision the appeal is taken where: (1) the proceedings before that tribunal constitute, in turn, a review of the determination of the cause by yet another tribunal; and (2) that reviewing tribunal is inhibited by law from considering any other evidence than that adduced before the trial tribunal and that evidence is exemplified in the record of the cause before the reviewing tribunal as provided by law.

The Administrator of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation allowed unemployment benefits to appellants. American Brake Shoe appealed to the board of review, which, after receiving and considering evidence presented by the opposing parties, reversed the decision of the administrator.

Appellants next appealed to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to paragraph (O) of Section 4141.28, Revised Code, which reads, in part:

'* * * The board upon written demand filed by an appellant shall within thirty days after the filing of such demand file with the clerk a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings before the board pertaining to the decision complained of, and the appeal shall be heard upon such record certified by the board. A bill of exceptions shall not be required. * * *'

Appellants filed no bill of exceptions to the proceedings before the board, but, pursuant to their written demand, the board filed with the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings before it pertaining to the decision appealed from.

The transcript of the docket shows that the filing was made on October 27, 1964, with the notation 'Administrator's File filed.' An examination of a document bearing, on its cover, the legend, 'Administrator's File,' which is among the original papers before this court, shows that it contains a copy of the transcript of the evidence adduced and the original papers in this cause before the board, duly certified by the members thereof. It bears the filing stamp of the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court dated October 27, 1964, on its first and last pages. No question is raised by appellees that this document is not, in fact, a certified transcript of the evidence before the board in this cause.

The Common Pleas Court affirmed the decision of the board. The judgment entry of that court recites that 'the court, having considered the transcript of the record of the proceedings before the board pertaining to the decision complained of and having considered the briefs submitted by the parties, the oral argument of said parties and the applicable law, finds that the decision of the board of review was not inlawful, unreasonable, nor against the manifest weight of the evidence and that said decision should be affirmed.' No complaint is made by appellees that that court, in fact, considered evidence other than that exemplified by the transcript certified by the board as recited in its entry.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court dismissed the appeal without consideration of the merits on the ground that no bill of exceptions to the proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas was presented and allowed by that court and filed in the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 2321.05, Revised Code.

Clayman, Jaffy & Taylor, David Clayman and...