Ayulo v. Mullen

N.D. Ohio

Ayulo v. Mullen

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 69

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedApril 4, 1922

DocketNo. 10749

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 69 (Ayulo v. Mullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ayulo v. Mullen, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 69 (N.D. Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTENHAVER, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Action at law to recover on contract. Heard on demurrer to second defense of amended answer. Overruled.

Under the President’s proclamations of Sept. 7, 1917, and Oct. 8, 1917, all persons or firms engaged in importing or distributing sugar were required to obtain a license. The plaintiff, not having obtained such a license, sued defendant on a contract to deliver sugar. The second defense set up the section of the war act, providing that its provisions ceased to be in effect when the state of war was terminated. It was held:

1. That the plaintiff, being an unlicensed dealer, could not maintain the action, and

2. That the armistice did not of itself terminate the war, but the war time legislation continued in force until the proclamation declaring it terminated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WESTENHAVER, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Action at law to recover on contract. Heard on demurrer to second defense of amended answer. Overruled.

Under the President’s proclamations of Sept. 7, 1917, and Oct. 8, 1917, all persons or firms engaged in importing or distributing sugar were required to obtain a license. The plaintiff, not having obtained such a license, sued defendant on a contract to deliver sugar. The second defense set up the section of the war act, providing that its provisions ceased to be in effect when the state of war was terminated. It was held:

1. That the plaintiff, being an unlicensed dealer, could not maintain the action, and

2. That the armistice did not of itself terminate the war, but the war time legislation continued in force until the proclamation declaring it terminated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayulo-v-mullen-ohnd-1922.