Ohio Court of Appeals, 1932

Haffelfinger Co. v. Cianflona

Haffelfinger Co. v. Cianflona
Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided December 31, 1932 · Allread, Hornbeck, Kunkle
13 Ohio Law. Abs. 481; 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 934

Haffelfinger Co. v. Cianflona

Opinion of the Court

HORNBECK, J.

Preliminary to consideration of the errors claimed we are met with a motion by the receiver, a defendant in error, to dismiss the error proceedings for failure of the plaintiff in error to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court. Upon this question the brief of plaintiff in error is silent. We believe the law is well established in Ohio and that neither in cases of law nor in equity can the evidence be weighed on error unless the trial court has been given that opportunity upon a motion for a new trial. The errors urged by the plaintiff in error in the instant case can not be determined without a consideration of the evidence. The motion to dismiss must, therefore, be sustained upon the authority of Minnear v Holloway, 56 Oh St, 151; Everett v Sumner, 32 Oh St, 562; Spangler v Brown, 26 Oh St, 389; Randall v Turner, 17 Oh St, 262; Westfall v Dugan, 14 Oh St, 276.

ALLREAD, PJ, and KUNKLE, J, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.