
    PRUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUGHEL, Defendant-Appellee.
    Ohio Appeals, Second District, Montgomery County.
    No. 2051.
    Decided May 19, 1949.
    
      Gus W. Byttner, Dayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
    Harshman & Young, Dayton, for defendant-appellee.
   OPINION

By THE COURT:

Submitted on motion of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule VII and that the order appealed from is not a ñnai order.

On November 18, 1948, the appellant gave notice of intention to appeal on questions of law. More than fifty days have elapsed and the record shows that appellant has failed to file assignments of error, briefs and bill of exceptions. The motion will be sustained for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule VII.

The order appealed from is specifically designated as the order overruling the motion for new trial. After the verdict of the jury was returned, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled. No judgment was entered on the verdict. It is well settled that an order overruling a motion for new trial, without more, is not a final order from which an appeal on questions of law may be prosecuted. Vol. 2, O. Jur., Part 1, pp. 204, 205; Robertson v. Coach Lines Co., 137 Oh St 136, 138, 28 N. E. (2d) 358; Champs v. Stone, 73 Oh Ap 319, 56 N. E. (2d) 251; Mahaffey v. Stine, 28 Abs 361; Hauek v. Hauck, 29 Abs 575; Covington Building & Loan Assn. v. Yost, 31 Abs 672; Martin, Admr., v. N. Y. C. Rd. Co., 32 Abs 152. The motion to dismiss will be sustained on the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order.

Counsel will prepare the proper entry.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.  