From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heigel v. Heigel

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 1, 1932
186 N.E. 99 (Ohio 1932)

Opinion

No. 23414

Decided June 1, 1932.

Court of Appeals — Error proceedings — Seventy-day limitation runs from entry of judgment, not overruling new trial motion — Divorce and alimony.

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.

Mr. Edwin J. Lynch, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank A. Carabin and Miss Mary Gillen, for defendant 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 upon the authority of Craig v. Welply, 104 Ohio St. 312, and Wells, Jr., v. Wells, 105 Ohio St. 471.

Judgment affirmed.

MARSHALL, C.J., JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Heigel v. Heigel

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 1, 1932
186 N.E. 99 (Ohio 1932)
Case details for

Heigel v. Heigel

Case Details

Full title:HEIGEL v. HEIGEL

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 1, 1932

Citations

186 N.E. 99 (Ohio 1932)
186 N.E. 99

Citing Cases

In re Guardianship of Gausepohl

The Supreme Court has determined many, many times that the overruling of a motion for new trial is not a…

Harbaugh v. Utz

" The Craig and Wells cases were approved and followed a year later in Heigel v. Heigel (1932), 125 Ohio St.…