Neuman v. Becker

• Decision Date: 17 March 1896
• Parties: NEUMAN v. BECKER.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

46 N.E. 706

54 Ohio St. 323

NEUMAN v. BECKER.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 17, 1896

Error to circuit court, Crawford county.

Action by one Neuman against one Becker From the judgment, Neuman brings error. Affirmed.

Stephen R. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Dan Babst, Jr., and Finley & Bennett, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The provisions of section 5302, Rev. St., as amended March 22, 1892 (89 Ohio Laws, p. 125), prescribing a time within which a bill of exceptions, taken upon overruling a motion for a new trial, shall be submitted to opposite counsel for examination, and to the judge or judges for signing, and also the provision requiring the judge or judges to indorse thereon any extension of time that may be given for signing such bill of exceptions, are mandatory. Therefore such bill of exceptions must be submitted to opposite counsel at least 10 days before the expiration of the statutory period of 50 days, and to the judge or judges at least 5 days before the expiration of such period; and, unless both of these conditions are performed, the judge or judges have lost jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and are without authority to sign the bill of exceptions, or to extend the time for that purpose. If such judge or judges, acting within the statutory period, extend the time for signing a bill of exceptions, but do not indorse such extension thereon, jurisdiction is in that case lost also; and any subsequent allowance or signing the same is without authority, and for that reason void. Judgment affirmed.