146 N.E.2d 309 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1957
This is an appeal on a question of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court striking from the files of such court a motion filed by appellant for a new trial.
On August 8, 1955, the Common Pleas Court, having previously overruled an application of appellants to consider additional evidence, upon consideration of the transcript of the proceedings of the agency, found that the procedural requirements in adopting, amending and repealing the regulations have been complied with, and that the regulation as so adopted is reasonable and lawful.
On August 9, 1956, appellant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that (1) the final judgment is contrary to law, and (2) error of law occurred at the trial.
On August 30, 1956, the appellee moved to strike the motion for a new trial from the files on the ground that there is no provision in law for the filing of such a motion in the Common Pleas Court wherein such court has exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section
On October 4, 1956, the motion for a new trial was stricken from the files, and on the same day appellants filed their notice of appeal on questions of law from the judgments entered August 8 and October 4, 1956.
On January 25, 1957, this Court of Appeals overruled a motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal taken from the judgment entered October 4th and reserved judgment upon that portion of such motion seeking dismissal of the appeal taken from the judgment entered August 8, 1956. The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial court erred in striking the motion for a new trial from the files, in other words, whether a party aggrieved by an order of the Common Pleas Court upon appeal from the adoption of a regulation of an administrative agency pursuant to the provision of Section *519
A trial is a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or of fact, in an action or proceeding. Section
Since the 1945 amendment of the definition of a new trial, a motion for a new trial involves re-examination of issues of law as well as issues of fact. Duemer v. Duemer,
In the instant case the appeal was taken to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to the provisions of Section
Under Section
It seems apparent that the appeal provided in Section
In reaching a decision upon this appeal we are required to construe that clause of Section
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Common Pleas Court with direction to determine the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
HORNBECK and DEEDS, JJ., concur.
FESS and DEEDS, JJ., of the Sixth Appellate District, and HORNBECK, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Tenth Appellate District.