Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co.

35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 80

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1878·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

As held in Shinkle v. First National Bank, 22 Ohio St. 516, it is competent for a defendant in error to file a cross-petition, asking the reversal of the judgment for errors prejudicial to him, and not assigned in the plaintiff’s petition. And as a petition in error may, under the present legislation, be filed without leave of court, the same rule will be applied to the cross-petition.

Motion denied.

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

By the Court.

As held in Shinkle v. First National Bank, 22 Ohio St. 516, it is competent for a defendant in error to file a cross-petition, asking the reversal of the judgment for errors prejudicial to him, and not assigned in the plaintiff’s petition. And as a petition in error may, under the present legislation, be filed without leave of court, the same rule will be applied to the cross-petition.

Motion denied.

Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co., 35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 80 (Ohio 1878).

Pincite

35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 80 (Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.