Home/Ohio Court of Appeals/Bruckman v. Bruckman Co.

Bruckman v. Bruckman Co.

21 N.E.2d 481, 60 Ohio App. 361, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 338, 14 Ohio Op. 331, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 274
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 5, 1938
DocketNo 5501
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 21 N.E.2d 481 (Bruckman v. Bruckman Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruckman v. Bruckman Co., 21 N.E.2d 481, 60 Ohio App. 361, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 338, 14 Ohio Op. 331, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 274 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

OPINION

By ROSS, PJ.

The cause here considered is a proceeding from a declaratory judgment.

A demurrer was filed to the ■ amended petition and the same was dismissed, as not stating any cause of action.

An examination of the record causes us to conclude that facts were alleged in the amended petition sufficient to state a cause of action under the statutes providing for a declaratory judgment.

This does not mean that the plaintiff has stated facts entitling him to a declaration of rights as he claims them to be, but it means that the court is required to state what rights, if any, the plaintiff has under the facts stated. If the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under those facts, the court must so state.

*339 The effect of sustaining the demurrer is to find that the plaintiff has not brought himself within the provisions of the declaratory judgment statutes.

The court in the instant case wrote a very comprehensive and, in our opinion, accurate decision upon the merits of the plaintiff’s contention, finding against him. If such findings had been incorporated in a judgment after proper pleading, the rights of the plaintiff in the matter would have been properly considered.

We, therefore, conclude that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law, after the overruling of the demurrer.

HAMILTON and MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

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

Related

O'Donnell v. State, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2006)
2006 Ohio 2696 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Weyandt v. Davis
679 N.E.2d 1191 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
Velasquez v. Ghee
649 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
Calhoun v. Supreme Court
399 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1978)
Alsop v. Heater
342 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1975)
DeVore v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.
288 N.E.2d 202 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1972)
Siferd v. Stambor
214 N.E.2d 106 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1966)
Neal v. Reliance Electric & Engineering Co.
196 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1963)
Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Turner
71 S.E.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Anderson v. Wyoming Development Co.
154 P.2d 318 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1944)
Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society
146 P.2d 673 (California Supreme Court, 1944)
Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove
130 P.2d 1013 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Moss v. Moss
128 P.2d 526 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
Rockland Light and Power Co. v. City of New York
43 N.E.2d 803 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York
263 A.D. 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 N.E.2d 481, 60 Ohio App. 361, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 338, 14 Ohio Op. 331, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruckman-v-bruckman-co-ohioctapp-1938.