Riverside Rubber Co. v. Midland Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1900
• Citation: 57 N.E. 958,63 Ohio St. 66
• Parties: RIVERSIDE RUBBER CO. v. MIDLAND MFG. CO. et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

57 N.E. 958

63 Ohio St. 66

RIVERSIDE RUBBER CO. v. MIDLAND MFG. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

May 22, 1900

Error to circuit court, Sandusky county.

Action by the Riverside Rubber Company against the Midland Manufacturing Company and others. Judgment for defendants in common pleas, and plaintiff brought error. Bill of exceptions stricken from the files in the circuit court, and judgment affirming the judgment below. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

In the common pleas the plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled June 28, 1897, and judgment for defendants rendered, to which plaintiff excepted, and plaintiff was given 50 days in which to prepare, file, have allowed and signed its bill of exceptions, and the journal of the term was ordered kept open for 50 days for that purpose. The bill was presented to opposite counsel in proper time, but was not presented to the trial judge until August 17, 1897, being 50 days after the overruling of the motion for new trial, at which time the judge extended the time for examination and signing of the bill of exceptions 10 days, and indorsed the same on the bill. On August 23, 1897, the judge allowed and signed the bill. Thereupon, on the same day (being in the vacation of the court between the April term and the September term), an entry, directed by the trial judge, was placed upon the journal as follows: ‘Be it remembered that on this 23d day of August, 1897, this cause came on for hearing upon application for allowance and signing of the bill of exceptions heretofore prepared and submitted to the court; it being agreed by counsel and the court finding that said bill of exceptions was presented by counsel for plaintiff to opposing counsel on the 7th day of August, 1897 at 5:30 o'clock p. m., and not before, and was presented to Hon. S. A. Wildman, trial judge, on the 17th day of August, 1897, and not before (said judge not having been absent from said district at any time after said trial); and said court having, on the said 17th day of August, 1897, for the purpose of examining and signing said bill of exceptions extended the time ten days, which extension was duly indorsed upon said bill of exceptions at the time; and the court having examined said bill of exceptions, and finding the same to be a true bill of exceptions, did, on the 23d day of August, allow and sign the same, and ordered it to be filed but not spread upon the journal; to which extension of time and the indorsing of the same, and to the allowance and signing of said bill, defendants by their counsel then and there duly excepted.’ The bill of exceptions itself shows that it was signed on August 23, 1897, and it also shows that it was presented to the judge ‘at the time and in the manner stated in the journal entry thereof.’ In the circuit court defendants interposed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the files, and the court ‘being fully advised in the premises, and having heard the arguments of counsel,’ ordered the bill stricken from...