Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

HUMMELL v. MERCIER, 128 Ohio St. 49 (1934)

HUMMELL v. MERCIER. (Two Cases.), 190 N.E. 408 (Ohio 1934)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1934-03-14
Topic
general

HUMMELL v. MERCIER, 128 Ohio St. 49 (1934) 190 N.E. 408 HUMMELL v. MERCIER. (Two Cases.) Nos. 24456 and 24457Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided March 14, 1934.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HUMMELL v. MERCIER, 128 Ohio St. 49 (1934). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HUMMELL v. MERCIER,128 Ohio St. 49(1934)
190 N.E. 408
HUMMELL v. MERCIER. (Two Cases.)
Nos. 24456 and 24457
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided March 14, 1934.
Municipal Court of Sandusky — Appeal to Common Pleas Court —Limitation runs from date judgment entered on civil docket.
ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Erie county.
Messrs. King, Flynn Frohman, for plaintiff in error.Messrs. Krueger, Rosino Moore, for defendants in error.
It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority ofWyantv.Russell,109 Ohio St. 167, for the reason that the record discloses that the Municipal Court of Sandusky rendered judgment as of May 25, 1932, which judgment was entered on the civil docket of that court as required by law and was not vacated, and the limitation for perfecting appeal ran from the judgment of May 25, 1932.Judgment affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ALLEN, STEPHENSON, JONES, MATTHIAS, BEVIS and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.