Carl Construction Co. v. Hubley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Carl Construction Co. v. Hubley

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 309

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 1924

DocketNo. 569

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 309 (Carl Construction Co. v. Hubley) 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

Carl Construction Co. v. Hubley, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 309 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Default judgment was entered June 11, 1923. Within three days and during term a [310]*310motion to vacate the default judgment was filed. The motion was sustained also during term. The case is still pending in the court below. Error is prosecuted to the order vacating the default judgment. A motion has been filed in this court to dismiss the proceedings in error upon the ground that there is no final judgment. This motion must be sustained upon the following authority: Continental Trust Company v. Home Fuel Company, 99 OS: 453; Higginbotham v. Atwater, 12 App. 80.

Attorneys — Parker & Brooks, for Carl Co.; William H. Miller, George R. Murray, for Hubley, all of Dayton.

Petition in error dismissed.

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

BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Default judgment was entered June 11, 1923. Within three days and during term a [310]*310motion to vacate the default judgment was filed. The motion was sustained also during term. The case is still pending in the court below. Error is prosecuted to the order vacating the default judgment. A motion has been filed in this court to dismiss the proceedings in error upon the ground that there is no final judgment. This motion must be sustained upon the following authority: Continental Trust Company v. Home Fuel Company, 99 OS: 453; Higginbotham v. Atwater, 12 App. 80.

Attorneys — Parker & Brooks, for Carl Co.; William H. Miller, George R. Murray, for Hubley, all of Dayton.

Petition in error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-construction-co-v-hubley-ohioctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack