Columbus v. Mosco Realty Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Columbus v. Mosco Realty Co.

156 N.E.2d 156, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 466, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 926

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 1958

DocketNo. 5707

StatusPublished

This text of 156 N.E.2d 156 (Columbus v. Mosco Realty 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

Columbus v. Mosco Realty Co., 156 N.E.2d 156, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 466, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 926 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the Mosco Realty Company, defendant-appellee, seeking an order dismissing the appeal on law and fact for the alleged reason that it is not so appealable. The appeal is prosecuted under §719.15 R. C., which permits adverse claimants to a fund awarded in an appropriation proceeding to interplead and for the court to fully determine their rights in the same proceeding as that in which the appropriation and award were made. In the case of Columbus v. Huntington National Bank, etc., 75 Abs 214, this court held such an appeal may be had on law and fact under §2501.02 R. C.

For the reasons set forth in the above cited case the motion to dismiss will be overruled.

We note that appellant has filed an application for the appointment of a master commissioner to take testimony under the provisions of Rule V of this court since no transcript of the evidence taken before the Court of Common Pleas is available and counsel are unable to agree upon the evidence to be submitted.

The application will be allowed and Armstrong & Okey, Official Court Reporters, will be appointed for the purpose of taking such oral testimony and file the same with this court.

PETREE, PJ, BRYANT and MILLER, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the Mosco Realty Company, defendant-appellee, seeking an order dismissing the appeal on law and fact for the alleged reason that it is not so appealable. The appeal is prosecuted under §719.15 R. C., which permits adverse claimants to a fund awarded in an appropriation proceeding to interplead and for the court to fully determine their rights in the same proceeding as that in which the appropriation and award were made. In the case of Columbus v. Huntington National Bank, etc., 75 Abs 214, this court held such an appeal may be had on law and fact under §2501.02 R. C.

For the reasons set forth in the above cited case the motion to dismiss will be overruled.

We note that appellant has filed an application for the appointment of a master commissioner to take testimony under the provisions of Rule V of this court since no transcript of the evidence taken before the Court of Common Pleas is available and counsel are unable to agree upon the evidence to be submitted.

The application will be allowed and Armstrong & Okey, Official Court Reporters, will be appointed for the purpose of taking such oral testimony and file the same with this court.

PETREE, PJ, BRYANT and MILLER, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E.2d 156, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 466, 1958 Ohio App. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-v-mosco-realty-co-ohioctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack