Welfare Finance Corp. v. Estep
| Decision Date | 16 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 36096,36096 |
| Citation | 170 Ohio St. 391,165 N.E.2d 789,11 O.O.2d 120 |
| Parties | , 11 O.O.2d 120 WELFARE FINANCE CORP., Appellee, v. ESTEP, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Tom Reed, Waverly, for appellant.
John S. Street, Jr., and J. Donald Ratcliff, Chillicothe, for appellee.
The question presented is whether the defendant, having done everything required of her to perfect her appeal, can be precluded from perfecting an appeal and having it heard on the merits, by the inadvertent failure of the clerk of courts to transmit the bill of exceptions to the trial judge for his approval and settlement.
'The general rule that the law will not permit a party to suffer detriment by reason of the neglect * * * of an officer charged with a public duty where such party, in the prosecution of a right, has done everything that the law requires him to do, and fails to attain his right wholly by such neglect * * *, the duty of the officer being one pertaining to such right, has application to a case coming within the purview of sections 5301 and 5301a, Revised Statutes [now Sections 2321.06 and 2321.07, Revised Code], providing for the filing, allowance, and signing of bills of exceptions.' Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Ruthman, 85 Ohio St. 62, 96 N.E. 1019, paragraph one of the syllabus.
The provisions of Sections 2321.06 and 2321.07, supra, defining the duties of the clerk and trial judge relative to a bill of exceptions which a party has properly filed within time, are, as to the time of performance of such duties, directory only. Pace v. Volk, 85 Ohio St. 413, 98 N.E. 111, paragraph one of the syllabus.
The defendant in the instant case should not be precluded from having her appeal heard on the merits for failure of the clerk of courts to perform a ministerial act in connection with the bill of exceptions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capparell v. Love
...nor detract from the effectiveness of the filing of the notice of appeal on December 30, 1993. See Welfare Fin. Corp. v. Estep (1960), 170 Ohio St. 391, 11 O.O.2d 120, 165 N.E.2d 789; Ordway v. Motor Express, Inc. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 70, 40 O.O.2d 72, 227 N.E.2d 607; Ferrebee v. Boggs (19......
-
Pollock v. Rashid
...filing and to develop a policy regarding the acceptance of civil court filings by indigent persons. In Welfare Fin. Corp. v. Estep (1960), 170 Ohio St. 391, 11 O.O.2d 120, 165 N.E.2d 789, the defendant attempted to appeal an adverse judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment becaus......
-
Susan Pollock
...heard on the merits "for failure of the clerk of courts to perform a ministerial act in connection with the bill of exceptions." Id. at 392, 165 N.E.2d at 790. The found applicable "[t]he general rule that the law will not permit a party to suffer detriment by reason of the neglect *** of a......
-
Shirley E. Capparell, C/o Capparell Real Estate v. Kathleen Love and Robert Love, C/o Jeffers Realty Co.
... ... of Banks, v. State, ex rel. General Motors ... Corp. (1936), 130 Ohio St. 494. Rather, '[t]he term ... "filed" *** ... See ... Welfare Finance Corp. v. Estep (1960), 170 Ohio St ... 391; Ordway v. Motor ... ...