City of Cincinnati v. Acme Barrel & Drum Co.
City of Cincinnati v. Acme Barrel & Drum Co.
Opinion of the Court
In Cincinnati v. Parker (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 209, 211, this court adopted and applied the opinion and syllabus in Cincinnati v. Brooks, 21 Ohio St. 2d 73, holding that a Municipal Court has the power to extend the time for filing a bill of exceptions.
The facts in the ease are not in dispute. It appears that the Municipal Court’s entry extending the time for filing the bill of exceptions was misplaced, and was not before the Court of Appeals when it ruled on the motion to dismiss the appeal, but the entry was later discovered and presented to the Court of Appeals on appellant’s motion for reconsideration.
Appearing patently on the face of the record, is the
“Under Section 2945.65, Revised Code, it is not essential that a motion to extend the period for filing a bill of exceptions be filed in the trial court within the time fixed for the filing of such bill; and, after expiration of an original extension of such period, the trial court may, in the exercise of a sound discretion and for good cause shown, grant a further extension thereof.”
Neither in argument nor in brief does the appellee raise an issue concerning the applicability of the Holt rule to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, we do not confront such an issue.
The city of Cincinnati takes the position that the bill of exceptions in the case at bar was filed on April 7, 1970, even after the extended time for filing (March 31, 1970) had passed.
Appellant argues that the bill of exceptions was filed on March 20, 1970, well within the time limit as extended. Presumably, the city contends that the bill of exceptions, which the statute (R. C. 2945.65) requires to be filed within 30 days from the overruling of the motion for a new trial, is the finalized or settled form signed by the trial judge and forwarded to the appellate court.
For the purpose of the time limits required by R. C. 2945.65, the'bill of exceptions is filed when the defendant presents “his bill of exceptions * * * which the court shall sign.” Significantly, the statute refers to the materials as a bill of exceptions before the court considers signing it. The statute further requires that, at the time of the filing., it “shall be made a part of the record.”
On the filing of a hill of exceptions pursuant to R. C.
The procedure is similar where an appeal is taken from a final order, judgment or decree, as defined by E. 0. 2505.02.
All the above cited statutes refer to the “bill of exceptions,” as such, prior to the time within which objections or amendments may be filed, and the bill transmitted to the trial judge. Those statutes cannot be reasonably
Under R. C. 2945.65, a defendant has filed a bill of exceptions when he files the bill with the clerk of the trial court for further proceeding as required by R. C. 2945.66.
Accordingly, the record reveals that appellant filed its bill of exceptions, as required by R. C. 2945.65, on March 20, 1970, with the extension of time granted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed.
E. C. 2505.02, reads, in part:
“An order affecting a substantial right in an action which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, or an order vacating or setting aside a judgment and ordering a new trial is a final order which may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.