35 Ohio Law. Abs. 527 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1941
OPINION
The above-entitled cause, is now being determined on defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-appellant’s appeal on the ground that appellant, has failed to file brief within the time prescribed by a rule of our Court designated as Rule VII. Counsel for appellant admit that his brief and assignments of error were not filed within the prescribed time, but excuses under the claim of press of business and an agreement with counsel for appellee that the failure to file within time would not be objected to. The last claimed excuse is controverted by opposite counsel. However, he does admit that he called attention of counsel to his default and was willing to waive had counsel filed his brief within a reasonable time.
The brief was past due almost sixty days.
We have endeavored innumerable times to impress upon counsel the importance of this rule, and its required observance.
The enactment of the rule is within the powers of the Court and is just as effective as a statutory enactment. Counsel would never question the provisions of a statute of limitation, but nothwithstanding the frequency with which we have called attention to the rule, we still have instances where counsel refuse to consider it seriously.
From time to time the substance of the rule has been published in the' “Daily Reporter” in Columbus. Many of our decisions have been reported. In two instances counsel have carried the cases, to the Supreme Court. That Court has sustained the rules and affirmed our dismissal.
When counsel find themselves pressed for time it would take only a few minutes to make an application to the Court for an extention of time. In most instances this request would be granted by opposite counsel. In one of
The motion to dismiss the appeal will be sustained.
Entry may be drawn accordingly.
