Bickel v. Whitacre

Ohio Court of Appeals

Bickel v. Whitacre

29 Ohio Law. Abs. 256, 1939 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided January 30, 1939·No. No 5558·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

An examination of the petition indicates that the plaintiff sought to state a cause of action against the defendant Whitacre as a Justice of the Peace. The evidence, however, clearly develops that the employment of Whitacre was as an attorney. The cause of action against him as such would expire in one year from the acts constituting malpractice. Such time had expired before instituting the suit.

The judgment of the trial court is correct, and the same is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, HAMILTON & MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

An examination of the petition indicates that the plaintiff sought to state a cause of action against the defendant Whitacre as a Justice of the Peace. The evidence, however, clearly develops that the employment of Whitacre was as an attorney. The cause of action against him as such would expire in one year from the acts constituting malpractice. Such time had expired before instituting the suit.

The judgment of the trial court is correct, and the same is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, HAMILTON & MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

Bickel v. Whitacre, 29 Ohio Law. Abs. 256, 1939 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

29 Ohio Law. Abs. 256 (Bickel v. Whitacre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related