Cleveland Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Duffy
22 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206
Opinion
We see no error in this. It is in the discretion of the court, whether it will dismiss a petition in error without the consent of both parties. Were it otherwise, great injustice might be done to the defendant, by delaying the enforcement of his judgment, and escaping the penalty imposed by the law for vexatious delay.
Motion overruled.
[207]*207If a plaintiff in error has this right, he can harass the defendant in error by repeated proceedings, dismissing each when called for hearing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cleveland Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Duffy, 22 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206 (Ohio 1871).
22 Ohio St. (N.S.) 206 (Cleveland Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Duffy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.